As a c++ developer I would nope the hell out of there or spend a month fixing the warnings - depending on pay. No way would I work with something in that state long term.
> until somebody gets to fix all warnings which are not bugs.
Code that is filled with ignored warnings generally gets worse, not better. Having little to no quality standards does that.
You might even find some zero days just by addressing all the warnings.
There's a reason practically no one uses a memory-safe C++ implementation.
You can have code without any warnings in clang, gcc and msvc++ compilers and it is probably better than code tested with only one compiler.
--
[0] - even if by ignoring them, when you're absolutely sure what you're doing.
-Wall -Wextra -Werror
Also IMO you often want to explicitly disable a few of those from -Wall and -Wextra -- Looking at the last c++ project I wrote, I turned off a few things like `-Wno-unused-parameter` for example.
[0]: http://blog.schmorp.de/2016-02-27-tidbits-for-the-love-of-go...
As you get further into a project you tend to need subtler tools. But for the rough work when starting out, my preference is to be stricter, which can be relaxed as necessary, rather than starting out lax and reaching a point where tightening becomes Sisyphean.
-Weverything
Under gcc, '-Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic' does not enable all warnings. There are still more than 40 flags you have to give if you really want all of them.
The reason why boggles my mind to this day.
IMO rote splitting usually doesn't simplify, it just hides the complexity.