home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.lang.c++.moderated      Moderated discussion of C++ superhackery      33,346 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 32,037 of 33,346   
   Martin B. to Roman W   
   Re: c++ 11 and MS Visual Studio 11   
   21 Mar 12 11:36:19   
   
   0c067c55   
   From: 0xCDCDCDCD@gmx.at   
      
   On 21.03.2012 06:43, Roman W wrote:   
   > { Please limit your text to fit within 80 columns, preferably around 70,   
   >    so that readers don't have to scroll horizontally to read each line.   
   >    This article has been reformatted manually by the moderator. -mod }   
   >   
   > On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 11:17:42 PM UTC, Martin B. wrote:   
   >> Au contraire. Warning Level 4 is just basically unusable. If you have   
   >> even one piece of legacy code, it's sure to create lots and lots of   
   >> useless false positives, where you're not even sure how to begin to   
   >> resolve them.   
   >   
   > Most of the problems are local and can be resolved easily, in my   
   > experience. It's just that legacy code will raise a lot of warnings,   
   > but you can resolve them one by one.   
   >   
      
   We have done it for individual warnings: Activate, fix for a few hours,   
   check-in; activate next, fix for a few hours, check-in; ...   
      
   And I mean *hours* per most warnings, because there's *always* the odd   
   case or two, where you have to dig deeper to decide about a warning.   
      
   For us, doing this for *all* W4 warnings simply didn't seem economically   
   feasible.   
      
   >>   
   >> I think many Boost headers are also *not* W4 level clean, but I might be   
   >> wrong. (I'm actually not even sure about the Windows or MFC headers and   
   >> W4 ...)   
   >   
   > Yup, they're not.   
   >   
      
   And what are you doing about them? I mean, every odd file includes a   
   boost header! Developers will simply drown in warnings.   
      
   IMHO, from a build system POV, it should be possible to activate /   
   deactivate warnings not based on compilation unit, but based on files.   
   (So that a boost header file "never" generates a warning, and a on-site   
   developer file will have all warnings activated.) Well, wishful thinking   
   I guess.   
      
   cheers,   
   Martin   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca