Re: Seeking Endorsement: Boost.int128

Am 29.04.26 um 13:34 schrieb Andrey Semashev via Boost:
> On 29 Apr 2026 12:16, Dennis Luehring via Boost wrote:
>> Am 29.04.2026 um 11:02 schrieb Andrey Semashev via Boost:
>>> Personally, I never use -Werror and don't consider this a good practice.
>> rational for this? does it forces too much that people try to prevent
>> warnings at any cost/without thinking about?
> This topic has been beaten many times, but in short, compiler warnings
> are not portable and are often bogus and/or subjective. Even within the
> same compiler line, one version may not generate a warning and the next
> one will, for the same code. Requesting the compiler to fail in these
> conditions is counter-productive and hostile towards users.

Obviously Werror should be the users choice, not be forced upon them.
However I build the libraries I develop with Werror on CI and in the 
tests to enforce they are warning free.
1) Even if most warnings are false positives, those that are not help 
catch issues early.
     The rest is easy to suppress which is best done by the person how 
developed the code, not some user.
2) A user building my library won't be greeted with dozens or hundreds 
of warnings making them question if something is off.
     This has been recently observed to be an annoyance in the current 
release.
3) A user using my library and enabling Werror will likely not have any 
issues, as at least my headers are warning free.
     Mostly not an issue though as when installed to a "system" location 
no warnings will be generated by most compilers.

I fully disagree with that they "are often bogus and/or subjective", or 
compiler implementers wouldn't have implemented them.

- Alex

_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/USCXE33D3LJWKV4XUGJB5R4W5NQ5QLUV/