Subject: Re: [boost] [clang] Using clang in Windows
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-07-19 00:23:44
On 7/18/2014 3:03 PM, Mostafa wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 06:47:55 -0700, Edward Diener
> <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/18/2014 7:50 AM, Bjørn Roald wrote:
> [snip]
>>> I am thinking it may be time to be less gentle on new none compliant
>>> compiler versions. Why don't Boost attempt to remind Boost users and
>>> their compiler vendors that there are underlying non compliant compiler
>>> and standard library issues, in this case with the MS header files and
>>> preprocessor, that is complicating the availability, maintenance and
>>> improvement of the Boost libraries. One slightly radical but perhaps
>>> effective method would be to provide custom diagnostics, e.g. compiler
>>> warning and errors as appropriate. triggered by work around macros in
>>> Boost. The diagnostics should have a direct link to a page on Boost
>>> Wiki (or similar) that states the purpose of the diagnostics. Then state
>>> the status related to the goals of the Wiki page and suggested actions
>>> to take by users to help. The Wiki page should state how it is possible
>>> to silence the compiler warnings, but encourage users to take suggested
>>> actions before silencing the diagnostics.
>>>
> [snip]
>>
>> A separate diagnostic library based on macros could work to do this.
>> But we should of course allow the end-user to turn on or off such
>> compiler diagnostics messages.
>
> Should it? I thought the whole point is to sufficiently bug users so
> that they put enough pressure on their compiler vendors to become
> standards conformant.
Bugging users for any reason is not my idea of good software. All that
it may do is antagonize users, and what is the good of that.