suppressing warnings in boost header files

[usenet]

Is there any way to selectively suppress compiler warnings from
designated header files (Ex: Boost header files) using gcc-3.3.1 on
Linux PC?
We tried using -Wno-system-headers option but it did not seem to solve
the problem.
Is there any way to designate system header files other than using
<>?

Thanks,
Bala

 

[Victor Bazarov]

Is there any way to selectively suppress compiler warnings from
designated header files (Ex: Boost header files) using gcc-3.3.1 on
Linux PC?

You cross-posted too wildly. The C++ answer: no there is no way in
the language. You correclty asked in the newsgroup for g++, though.
Look for answers there. If a way exists, it would be implementation-
specific.

We tried using -Wno-system-headers option but it did not seem to solve
the problem.
Is there any way to designate system header files other than using
<>?

The headers are not necessarily files. Standard headers all have
the angle brackets. If there is a way to do something about the
files that contain headers (in line with "designating" them), that
would be implementation-specific.

V

 

[santosh]

Is there any way to selectively suppress compiler warnings from
designated header files (Ex: Boost header files) using gcc-3.3.1 on
Linux PC?
We tried using -Wno-system-headers option but it did not seem to solve
the problem.
Is there any way to designate system header files other than using
<>?

You should ask in <since Boost header files are C++.
Maybe also a gcc or Boost mailing list.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Is there any way to selectively suppress compiler warnings from
designated header files (Ex: Boost header files) using gcc-3.3.1 on
Linux PC?
We tried using -Wno-system-headers option but it did not seem to solve
the problem.

This is a question about gcc, not about either C or C++. Followups
redirected. (I dropped comp.sources.d as well.)

Is there any way to designate system header files other than using
<>?

You can usually use either
#include <header.h>
or
#include "header.h"

They differ in the way that the preprocessor searches for the file.
Unless you're intentionally replacing system headers (and if you do
that, you're on your own), you should use <>.

Why do you want to use something other than <>? What problem are you
trying to solve?

 

[BobR]

This is a question about gcc, not about either C or C++. Followups
redirected. (I dropped comp.sources.d as well.)


You can usually use either
#include <header.h>
or
#include "header.h"

They differ in the way that the preprocessor searches for the file.
Unless you're intentionally replacing system headers (and if you do
that, you're on your own), you should use <>.

Why do you want to use something other than <>? What problem are you
trying to solve?

Hmm, just the opposite of my logic.

<name> == system
"name.h" == user

 

[Default User]

Hmm, just the opposite of my logic.

<name> == system
"name.h" == user

That's what he's saying. If you want your own stdio.h, put it in a
directory that will be searched via "" inclusion. The way that searches
are performed is implementation-defined, of course, but usually it will
search the local directory and directories that are specified as
compiler options.




Brian