> when glancing over to something that can preclude most of them That's where we vehemently disagree. IME some diagnostics promote worse code. But my argument

> when glancing over to something that can preclude most of them That's where we vehemently disagree. IME some diagnostics promote worse code. But my argument regarding -Weverything comes down to something more practical--your code may compile today, but it will stop compiling tomorrow when the suite of diagnostics and their implementation change. And in a project maintained by more than one person, attempting to keep abreast of -Weverything is a losing battle, with the only benefit being aesthetic. Again, useful diagnostics will migrate to -Wextra, and the best of them to -Wall. You're arguing against a strawman, alluding to those who resist -Wextra or even -Wall. But -Weverything is defined as a testing bed for diagnostics. By definition even the compiler maintainers disagree about the value--how much it helps versus incentivizes unnecessary, even dangerous code modifications. Rather than relying on -Weverything to identify flaky C or C++ code, perhaps one should look into not using those languages for the bulk of their application. That way you avoid the most problematic areas of C and C++. Running around throwing casts everywhere to satisfy -Weverything is running in the wrong direction. -Weverything to my mind is something that might only seem useful to those copy+pasting code from Stack Exchange or now GPT. I'll stick with my well worn copy of the C and C++ standards, and spending my time proving the correctness of hairy code.