> Why can't developers, y'know, ACTUALLY READ THE BLOODY WARNINGS?
Same reason checklists are handy: People automatically optimize away "dead code" (nevermind the fact that reading the warnings is sometimes useful.)
> And then, y'know, they could FIX MORE THAN THE FIRST ONE after a single build pass?
I do get multiple errors with -Werror and kin, FWIW. But again we run into human nature - C++ errors get unreliable after the first one, so people tend to optimize away the "useless" step of reading the second error...
Same reason checklists are handy: People automatically optimize away "dead code" (nevermind the fact that reading the warnings is sometimes useful.)
> And then, y'know, they could FIX MORE THAN THE FIRST ONE after a single build pass?
I do get multiple errors with -Werror and kin, FWIW. But again we run into human nature - C++ errors get unreliable after the first one, so people tend to optimize away the "useless" step of reading the second error...