Re: Seeking Endorsement: Boost.int128

Alexander Grund wrote:
> 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.

That's true in principle, but -Werror with -Wconversion -Wsign-conversion
is far from uncontroversial, especially on old compilers that insist that

if( x > 0 )

is a horrible violation of propriety when x is unsigned.

Newer compilers are much better, but if you implement the "equivalent"
in a library, you'll be back to the stone age with the above being rejected.


_______________________________________________
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/LWB3MLDOYS5N7LBOGLPU5AHUGVD7MROI/