boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In the regression tables the following warnings are coming out of math
config.  I'm trying to understand what this means given that 1) the tests
compile and execute fine, 2) the deadline is up,  and 3) several of the
cases are compiled in c++11 mode (is it pre conformance bc it's
clang3.4?).  I've seen this warning in other places that include
lexical_cast as well.  So sure I could go and define the macro to quiet
this, but seems like that should be done closest to the source.  In other
words maybe math should only tell us that in headers that have a real
issue?  Or will this soon be a real issue?

../boost/math/tools/config.hpp:42:9: warning: CAUTION: One or more
C++11 features were found to be unavailable [-W#pragma-messages]
../boost/math/tools/config.hpp:43:9: warning: CAUTION: Compiling
Boost.Math in pre-C++11 conformance modes is now deprecated and will
be removed from March 2021. [-W#pragma-messages]
../boost/math/tools/config.hpp:44:9: warning: CAUTION: Define
BOOST_MATH_DISABLE_DEPRECATED_03_WARNING to suppress this message.
[-W#pragma-messages]

Full examples
https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/date_time.html
https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/output/teeks99-dkr-dc3-4-98-date_time-clang-linux-3-4~c++98-warnings.html#testc_local_adjustor

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list

On 24/03/2020 13:58, Jeff Garland via Boost wrote:
> In the regression tables the following warnings are coming out of math
> config.  I'm trying to understand what this means given that 1) the tests
> compile and execute fine, 2) the deadline is up,  and 3) several of the
> cases are compiled in c++11 mode (is it pre conformance bc it's
> clang3.4?).  I've seen this warning in other places that include
> lexical_cast as well.  So sure I could go and define the macro to quiet
> this, but seems like that should be done closest to the source.  In other
> words maybe math should only tell us that in headers that have a real
> issue?  Or will this soon be a real issue?

Well it will be a real issue in a year from now when we being removing
C++03 support - it may be that lexical_cast's dependencies have nothing
that will actually break (but I would need to check that), or that as a
temporary measure we could continue to support C++03 in selected
sub-parts if there is real demand for it.

Question: will anyone care about clang-3.4 a year from now given that
we're currently on clang-9 ?

John.

>
> ../boost/math/tools/config.hpp:42:9: warning: CAUTION: One or more
> C++11 features were found to be unavailable [-W#pragma-messages]
> ../boost/math/tools/config.hpp:43:9: warning: CAUTION: Compiling
> Boost.Math in pre-C++11 conformance modes is now deprecated and will
> be removed from March 2021. [-W#pragma-messages]
> ../boost/math/tools/config.hpp:44:9: warning: CAUTION: Define
> BOOST_MATH_DISABLE_DEPRECATED_03_WARNING to suppress this message.
> [-W#pragma-messages]
>
> Full examples
> https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/date_time.html
> https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/output/teeks99-dkr-dc3-4-98-date_time-clang-linux-3-4~c++98-warnings.html#testc_local_adjustor
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 10:26, John Maddock via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Question: will anyone care about clang-3.4 a year from now given that
> we're currently on clang-9 ?
>

clang-10 is final soon. It's only relevant on linux (clang-cl only sort of
works from 3.8 and upwards and IOS does its own thing anyway) and how many
have 3.4 as the default?

degski
--
@systemdeg
"We value your privacy, click here!" Sod off! - degski
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite
world is either a madman or an economist" - Kenneth E. Boulding
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward
P. Abbey

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
>   Well it will be a real issue in a year from now when we being removing
> C++03 support - it may be that lexical_cast's dependencies have nothing
> that will actually break (but I would need to check that), or that as a
>

it's basically using it for floating point traits and functions like
changesign.

lexical_cast/detail/if_nan.hpp
#include <boost/math/special_functions/sign.hpp>
#include <boost/math/special_functions/fpclassify.hpp>


> Question: will anyone care about clang-3.4 a year from now given that
> we're currently on clang-9 ?


I'd be fine if the answer is to drop really old compilers -- who makes that
decision these days, the steering committee?

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list

On 24/03/2020 17:32, Jeff Garland via Boost wrote:

>>    Well it will be a real issue in a year from now when we being removing
>> C++03 support - it may be that lexical_cast's dependencies have nothing
>> that will actually break (but I would need to check that), or that as a
>>
> it's basically using it for floating point traits and functions like
> changesign.
>
> lexical_cast/detail/if_nan.hpp
> #include <boost/math/special_functions/sign.hpp>
> #include <boost/math/special_functions/fpclassify.hpp>
Nod.  And there's nothing in there that requires anything other than
C++03, so I could fix this up to not issue the warnings if that's really
required.
>
>
>> Question: will anyone care about clang-3.4 a year from now given that
>> we're currently on clang-9 ?
>
> I'd be fine if the answer is to drop really old compilers -- who makes that
> decision these days, the steering committee?

Not sure, but there was a message thread a while back to the effect that
dropping C++03 support was OK as long as there was 12 months of
deprecation first.

John.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:42 AM John Maddock via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Nod.  And there's nothing in there that requires anything other than
> C++03, so I could fix this up to not issue the warnings if that's really
> required.
>

It would be nice if it's not a big deal to do, as I expect lexical cast
will continue to support c++03.  And the warnings show up in date-time, icl
and probably other libraries that have lexical cast -- or include
date-time.  But really, only if it's simple to do.

Not sure, but there was a message thread a while back to the effect that
> dropping C++03 support was OK as long as there was 12 months of
> deprecation first.
>

Which seems entirely reasonable given that 03 is really 98 so we are
talking about 20 years...

Jeff

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. März 2020 um 17:25 Uhr
> Von: "John Maddock via Boost" <[hidden email]>
>
>
> On 24/03/2020 13:58, Jeff Garland via Boost wrote:
> > In the regression tables the following warnings are coming out of math
> > config.  I'm trying to understand what this means given that 1) the tests
> > compile and execute fine, 2) the deadline is up,  and 3) several of the
> > cases are compiled in c++11 mode (is it pre conformance bc it's
> > clang3.4?).  I've seen this warning in other places that include
> > lexical_cast as well.  So sure I could go and define the macro to quiet
> > this, but seems like that should be done closest to the source. In other
> > words maybe math should only tell us that in headers that have a real
> > issue?

Can't speak for John, but personally I think that deciding for each header
individually whether it might use c++11 features in a year doesn't make sense.
In turn that would mean that everytime you want to use a c++11 feature in
a header that didn't use one before, you need to wait for another year and
you have to be super careful about which header includes which other header.
Thats just a waste of time.
Either deprecate c++03 for the whole library or not at all.

That aside, what is the harm in simply defining the supression macro when
compiling your tests with older compilers? I think the bigger question is:
Will date_time continue to support c++03 when (some) of the libraries
it currently depends on don't?

> >  Or will this soon be a real issue?
>
> Well it will be a real issue in a year from now when we being removing
> C++03 support

> [...]
> Question: will anyone care about clang-3.4 a year from now given that
> we're currently on clang-9 ?

As degski mentioned, I doubt clang 3.4 was a particularly popular compiler
to begin with, so the answer is probably no.

Two suggestions:
1) As c++11 support is not a yes/no thing, could you perhaps specify which
    compiler versions you plan to support? E.g. gcc 4.8 was/is a pretty popular
    c++11 compiler but had a lot of conformance issues and libstdc++ was
    still missing a lot of things. So while probably no one cares about
    clang-3.4, gcc 4.8 support might be important.
    As always, not supporting X wouldn't mean it won't work, just that you
    might not test it and might not invest time to fix compatibility problems.
   
2) If I understand this correctly, c++03 support is just now going to be deprecated.
    Maybe this should not yet generate compile-time warnings as soon as a header
    is included but for now only during compilation of boost math sources, examples
    and unit tests themselves. The general warning could then be added in the
    next release.
    Of course in addtion to announcements here on the ML, in the release notes,
    the docs and maybe on reddit, twitter and/or slack.

Best

Mike

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. März 2020 um 18:41 Uhr
> Von: "John Maddock via Boost" <[hidden email]>
>
>
> On 24/03/2020 17:32, Jeff Garland via Boost wrote:
> >>    Well it will be a real issue in a year from now when we being removing
> >> C++03 support - it may be that lexical_cast's dependencies have nothing
> >> that will actually break (but I would need to check that), or that as a
> >>
> > it's basically using it for floating point traits and functions like
> > changesign.
> >
> > lexical_cast/detail/if_nan.hpp
> > #include <boost/math/special_functions/sign.hpp>
> > #include <boost/math/special_functions/fpclassify.hpp>
> Nod.  And there's nothing in there that requires anything other than
> C++03, so I could fix this up to not issue the warnings if that's really
> required.
>

There was talk / the suggestion to move some core parts to a separate
library, also to avoid circular dependencies:

https://github.com/boostorg/math/issues/151

That would also solve this problem as a side effect.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Mike wrote:

> As degski mentioned, I doubt clang 3.4 was a particularly popular compiler
> to begin with, so the answer is probably no.

Clang 3.4 was the default Clang on Ubuntu Trusty.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:01 AM Mike via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
>
> Can't speak for John, but personally I think that deciding for each header
> individually whether it might use c++11 features in a year doesn't make
> sense.
> In turn that would mean that everytime you want to use a c++11 feature in
> a header that didn't use one before, you need to wait for another year and
> you have to be super careful about which header includes which other
> header.
> Thats just a waste of time.
> Either deprecate c++03 for the whole library or not at all.
>

Boost libraries jump thru a tremendous number of hoops -- see the macro
list in boost.config.  For many things it's not to bad to support different
configurations, although that's increasingly difficult.  Obviously
something in math makes them ready to move on from 03, but probably not for
the functions here.  John, who is responsible in part for config will
certainly know.  I guess the odd part for me is gcc and other clang
compilers in 98 mode don't have the warning -- so there must be something
unique about 3.x.

And sure, I might jump on the band wagon to dump support for 98/03 in some
future release.  And, overall I'd like to reduce those dependencies anyway
and newer standard libraries have facilities to help on that.

That aside, what is the harm in simply defining the supression macro when
> compiling your tests with older compilers? I think the bigger question is:
> Will date_time continue to support c++03 when (some) of the libraries
> it currently depends on don't?
>

The suppression macro would need to go into the header, but it wouldn't
solve the issue for a lexical_cast user.

>
>

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 12:18, Peter Dimov via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>
> > As degski mentioned, I doubt clang 3.4 was a particularly popular
> compiler
> > to begin with, so the answer is probably no.
>
> Clang 3.4 was the default Clang on Ubuntu Trusty.
>

And then there was Xenial and there after Bionic, and judging from the past
release dates soon a new LTS release. In the meanwhile IBM acquired RedHat
(and Fedora and CentOS) ...

degski
--
@systemdeg
"We value your privacy, click here!" Sod off! - degski
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite
world is either a madman or an economist" - Kenneth E. Boulding
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward
P. Abbey

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
degski wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 12:18, Peter Dimov via Boost
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> > > As degski mentioned, I doubt clang 3.4 was a particularly popular
> > > compiler to begin with, so the answer is probably no.
> >
> > Clang 3.4 was the default Clang on Ubuntu Trusty.
>
> And then there was Xenial and there after Bionic, and judging from the
> past release dates soon a new LTS release. In the meanwhile IBM acquired
> RedHat (and Fedora and CentOS) ...

Sure, I'm not saying it's relevant. But if you consider g++ 4.8 popular
because it was default on Trusty, you can't consider Clang 3.4 not-popular
because it was, too.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Jeff Garland wrote:

> The suppression macro would need to go into the header, but it wouldn't
> solve the issue for a lexical_cast user.

The issue for the lexical_cast user is that his code will break when Math
drops C++03 support, and the whole point of the message is to communicate
this.

The message is supposed to be verbose and annoying, because otherwise nobody
will pay any attention to it. Sure, the user has no immediate recourse; he
can only apply pressure on the lexical_cast maintainers to deal with it
somehow. But again, if there's no message, nobody will care.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list

On 24/03/2020 19:06, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

> Jeff Garland wrote:
>
>> The suppression macro would need to go into the header, but it
>> wouldn't solve the issue for a lexical_cast user.
>
> The issue for the lexical_cast user is that his code will break when
> Math drops C++03 support, and the whole point of the message is to
> communicate this.
>
> The message is supposed to be verbose and annoying, because otherwise
> nobody will pay any attention to it. Sure, the user has no immediate
> recourse; he can only apply pressure on the lexical_cast maintainers
> to deal with it somehow. But again, if there's no message, nobody will
> care.

Haha, yes, that's basically why I made it so... annoying.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list

> There was talk / the suggestion to move some core parts to a separate
> library, also to avoid circular dependencies:
Yes, and it is a good idea, but probably too late for this release.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 13:06, Peter Dimov via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The issue for the lexical_cast user is that his code will break when Math
> drops C++03 support, and the whole point of the message is to communicate
> this.
>

Another option would be to keep supporting boost::lexical_cast '03 for a
while, and move to Boost.Spirit, which is miles better anyway. Then while
at it, additionally adopt <charconv>.

degski
--
@systemdeg
"We value your privacy, click here!" Sod off! - degski
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite
world is either a madman or an economist" - Kenneth E. Boulding
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward
P. Abbey

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. März 2020 um 20:00 Uhr
> Von: "Peter Dimov via Boost" <[hidden email]>
>
> degski wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 12:18, Peter Dimov via Boost
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Mike wrote:
> > >
> > > > As degski mentioned, I doubt clang 3.4 was a particularly popular
> > > > compiler to begin with, so the answer is probably no.
> > >
> > > Clang 3.4 was the default Clang on Ubuntu Trusty.
> >
> > And then there was Xenial and there after Bionic, and judging from the
> > past release dates soon a new LTS release. In the meanwhile IBM acquired
> > RedHat (and Fedora and CentOS) ...
>
> Sure, I'm not saying it's relevant. But if you consider g++ 4.8 popular
> because it was default on Trusty, you can't consider Clang 3.4 not-popular
> because it was, too.
>

But clang isn't and wasn't the default compiler on ubuntu.
Also, IIRC, when we used clang at all back then, we directly
installed 3.5 anyway and generally, clang was much less popular back then
and mostly used for experimental stuff.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. März 2020 um 19:32 Uhr
> Von: "Jeff Garland via Boost" <[hidden email]>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:01 AM Mike via Boost <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>
> > That aside, what is the harm in simply defining the supression macro when
> > compiling your tests with older compilers? I think the bigger question is:
> > Will date_time continue to support c++03 when (some) of the libraries
> > it currently depends on don't?
> >
>
> The suppression macro would need to go into the header

Not sure if that would be a good idea.

Even if you are sure that your headers will still compile in c++03 in a year
(either because they no longer include boost math headers at all - neither directly
nor indirectly - or the specific headers remain compatible with 03).
That macro will leak and suppress the warning along different include chainis,
where the authors might not make give any such guarantees.
Of course you could define and later restore the macro, but personally I think
such suppression macros really belong on the command line of whoever is
assembling the final binary.

Best

Mike

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:46 PM Mike via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. März 2020 um 19:32 Uhr
> > Von: "Jeff Garland via Boost" <[hidden email]>
> >
> >
> > The suppression macro would need to go into the header
>
> Not sure if that would be a good idea.
>

I'm not a fan of the approach either -- hence the email thread.

Even if you are sure that your headers will still compile in c++03 in a
> year
>

And again, to be clear, they compile cleanly on clang4+ and all variants of
gcc now bc the boost math warning is only relevant to clang3.x.


> (either because they no longer include boost math headers at all - neither
> directly
> nor indirectly - or the specific headers remain compatible with 03).
>

The irony here is that, if anything, I'd keep lexical_cast for 03
compatibility and use to_string or charconv to break the dependency on
lexical_cast.  Of course, those require facilities not in 03.


> That macro will leak and suppress the warning along different include
> chainis,
> where the authors might not make give any such guarantees.
>


> Of course you could define and later restore the macro, but personally I
> think
> such suppression macros really belong on the command line of whoever is
> assembling the final binary.
>
> Yep, but keep in mind that if you're using 1.73 boost with clang3.x you'll
have to actively suppress a warning about something that is a 'future
problem' -- that isn't really an issue with your code in any way.  It's
simply a decision, ultimately, that boost authors have made that is
annoying. I mean we could have a warning like "dropping support for
clang3.x after this release for the following libraries' which would be far
more informative and actionable from the user point of view.  I feel we can
come up with a better path than having this warning.

Jeff

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:19 PM John Maddock via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 24/03/2020 19:06, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> > Jeff Garland wrote:
> >
> >> The suppression macro would need to go into the header, but it
> >> wouldn't solve the issue for a lexical_cast user.
> >
> > The issue for the lexical_cast user is that his code will break when
> > Math drops C++03 support, and the whole point of the message is to
> > communicate this.
>

Although I think we've determined that the functions involved won't be
impacted -- so we're warning about a future non-event.  Perhaps turning off
the warning in lexical_cast is the correct option for 1.73 with a refactor
(probably of math functions to core) for 1.74.


> > The message is supposed to be verbose and annoying, because otherwise
> > nobody will pay any attention to it. Sure, the user has no immediate
> > recourse; he can only apply pressure on the lexical_cast maintainers
> > to deal with it somehow. But again, if there's no message, nobody will
> > care.
>
> Haha, yes, that's basically why I made it so... annoying.
>
> Having the desired effect :) If it looked trivial and difficult to mess up
I'd commit the pr to lexical_cast myself, no pressure required.  But
looking at the code it wasn't trivial and I can see why it was wise to
depend on the expertise of boost.math instead of trying to re-invent.

Jeff

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
12