OTH: If the warnings can't have false positives, they would be errors. There's a lot to talk about 'warning hygiene', it's part of the daily life of C/C++ code

OTH: If the warnings can't have false positives, they would be errors. There's a lot to talk about 'warning hygiene', it's part of the daily life of C/C++ coders since it's very common that existing 'warning clean' code bases suddenly spam new warnings after upgrading compilers to a new version (that's also why it's good advice to not lambast an unfamiliar code base for having warnings before investigating why that is, it may simply have been developed with a slightly older compiler version than yours). I don't agree with the author though: warnings should be turned to 11, then investigated, and locally suppressed if they turn out to be false positives (which is very frequent if you turn the warning level to max - also because some of the 'fringe warnings' are merely coding style suggestions). Also: static analyser tools almost always depend on additional hints outside the language spec (usually provided through asserts), without those additional hints all static analysers produce a ton of false positives because C and C++ alone don't provide the builtin language features to express enough 'intent' to the analyser.