This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: another effc++ spurious warning?


On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 07:59:25PM +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> 
> > Those rules were designed for fairly old-fashioned code that
> > mostly look like C code, i.e. verbose and a pain to evolve.
> > As you pointed out, they don't make much sense for modern
> > C++.  I would suggest to just remove that check.
> 
> Well, you would suggest to remove -Weffc++ altogether (and I even
> might agree, but still). I think it still have its uses for certain
> kind of code, and for beginners. In that case, we still want this
> check. I don't think it makes sense to disable a single warning of
> -Weffc++ unless it's proven totally useless.

We already have a feature to prevent warnings originating from system 
headers.  Why does it fail in this case?  

I don't mind having spurious warnings in -Weffc++, as long as we are 
not obliged to dirty the library code just to avoid them.

Nathan Myers
ncm-nospam@cantrip.org


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]