Hi Wojtek,

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Wojciech Lewandowski
> But the other side is that proper fixing would probably require modifying
> hundreds of OSG headers. I doubt that there is anyone brave enough to accept
> this time consuming task and I doubt Robert will authorize this move.

Proper fixing for quite a few warnings requires fixing the compiler...

I'm for gradually tightening up on the sensible warnings that are
produced.  I'm against a wholesale warnings purge.  You really need
good engineers to do warnings fixes, as it's very easy to be be lured
into think there is problem in the code and then fixing and breaking
it in the process.  Another danger is that by fixing a "warning" is
that the code can become more obfusticated and more difficult to
maintain which leads to more bugs in the long term.  This is why you
need a engineer that really understands C++, what the actual OSG code
is attempting to do, and the idiosyncrasies of compilers and to see to
the bottom of all warnings in what they really mean in terms of
compiled code and its reliability.

I know that some groups have a non warnings policy in their projects,
but I consider this a bad policy as it can lead to chasing false
positives, fixing things that aren't broken and reducing software
quality as a consequence.

osg-users mailing list

Reply via email to