Let me tell you a little secret: this isn't (just) the FSF pushing the zero tolerance with warnings trend. It's disseminated among the younger developers in most languages, not only C++. For example, I work in a big C# project where this "warning=stop the build" is adopted, too.revelator wrote:most of them do still support xp, its just a matter of providing the right --march= --mtune= flags
so for core2 its --march=core2 --mtune=core2, codeblocks has the option now to set these in build options.
My only gripe atm is that the fsf is pushing all there cards on C++11 and later C++ apis while breaking earlier C++ standards. Also breaking a ton of stuff with clang alike checks that should only be warnings but end up as errors because everyone and there mother has adopted the stance that any warning=error so a lot of packages now simply wont tolerate any warning at all and they enforce it by building with -Werror. The big problem is that to fix this collosal blunder would mean that a lot of sources would have to have serious surgery to even build again and there is no guarantee that they wll even work when built with these new versions.
So either they stop this crap or im done with gcc. Clang seems to be allmost production ready anyway on windows.
Personally ? I'm fine with it as long is adopted since the very start of the project and is part of a bigger effort including good test coverage and proper continuous integration. Changing the rules in the middle of something big just because is trendy ? It's a nightmare, and a very stupid decision.