Hi Danushka, > > I think I understand the issues the compiler is warning > against, but I > > don't have 100% confidence. What rationale did you use for disabling > > the warnings? > > > Hi Steve, > > I am sorry for the late reply in the first place.
No problem - thanks for your reply. > Well ... we do not have any control what so ever on this as > Boots itself > possesses these issues. On the other hand as far I can see, this does > not lead to any malfunctioning. When I checked on the Boost mailing > lists, the common knowledge is to disable the warning and proceed. Ok, I see, and agree. I still don't feel safe blindly disabling the warning globally since we really need to know if Qpid has code that triggers one of these so it can be evaluated. I'm going to try selectively disabling the warnings around the usage. To other devs... This selective disabling involves compiler-specific ifdefs in the header files... Like: #ifdef MSVC # pragma warning(push) # pragma warning(disable : 4251 4231 4660) #endif // code here #ifdef MSVC #pragma warning(pop) #endif Unfortunately, this is not the kind of thing that can be placed in a separate reusable header since the warning numbers may change on a case-by-case basis. The trade-off here is keeping compiler-specific things out of the headers vs. only disabling the warning in specific spots where we believe it to be safe. Thoughts? Thanks, -Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
