Re: Seeking Endorsement: Boost.int128

On 29 Apr 2026 16:05, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:
> 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.

Well, it started from Boost.int128 enforcing a -Werror-like behavior on
users and claiming this was uncontroversial.

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

That's just my experience with warnings. I think, most of the warnings I
get are bogus; I can't remember the last time I got a useful one, apart
from deprecation warnings after upgrading a library. Quite a few of the
bogus ones are coming from the standard library and system headers,
actually. And no, headers residing in a system directory doesn't silence
these warnings, at least not in my case.

_______________________________________________
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/UJ6CIIQ3WWDL4ESQR2OC63RREETJQKNX/