From:  scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date:  27 Oct 2024 03:37:08 Hong Kong Time
Newsgroup:  news.alt119.net/comp.lang.c
Subject:  

Re: constexpr keyword is unnecessary

NNTP-Posting-Host:  null

Janis Papanagnou  writes:
>On 26.10.2024 17:08, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 10/26/24 10:07, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>>
>>> I have in the past had coding standards that require you to fix all 
>>> warnings. After all, sometimes they do matter.
>> 
>> I disapprove of that policy. A conforming implementation is free to warn
>> about anything, even about your failure to use taboo words as
>> identifiers. While that's a deliberately silly example, I've seen a fair
>> number of warnings that had little or no justification.
>> The purpose of warnings is to tell you that there might be a problem. If
>> the compiler is certain that there's a problem, it should generate an
>> error message, not a warning. Therefore, treating warnings as if they
>> were error messages means that you're not doing your job, as the
>> developer, to determine whether or not the code is actually problematic.
>
>We had such a null-warning policy as well (in a C++ context) and it
>served us well.

Yes, we have a similar policy.   Works well.   In the odd case where
one cannot eliminate the warning, a simple compiler option to not
test that particulary condition for that particular compilation unit
is a straightforward solution.