Hacker News Reader

Comment by deogeo | Hacker News Reader

> If a warning message is considered not fixable, or not desirable to fix, it’s preferable to remove the associated flag from the build chain.

I like to use diagnostic pragmas (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Diagnostic-Pragmas.html) in the vanishingly rare cases where I can't fix the cause of a warning.

View on HN

This unfortunately gets messy when you're targeting multiple compilers, and in some cases multiple versions of the same compiler.

At least clang has it covered: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#pragma-gcc-diag...

Don't know what the situation is on MS's and Intel's compilers.

The same functionality is available: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/preprocessor/warning?vi...

And you can use _Pragma / __pragma to hide them inside (conditional) macros without #ifdefing up every call site.

There are still edge cases where you can't sanely scope them relating to when templates are evaluated, being unable to use the pragmas at arbitrary points of an expression, warnings that don't respect the warning flags properly, etc. - but it works most of the time.

That said, for warnings with high false positives and low value true positives, I'll just globally suppress the warning.

Works well if your only targets are GCC and Clang. For building across several platforms with other compilers, you could just manipulate the flags globally on those other compilers without giving up high levels and specificity of warnings on gcc/clang.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com