Which, to be provocative, begs the question: why isn't this tooling part of the compiler, that is, why aren't the diagnostics always produced by default, or even considered errors?
Sure, but looking at C's age, the language was changed significantly over time. With one of those changes, certain things could have been considered compile errors, not optional tooling.
Or if you turn your argument around: if people depend on workflows and automation (I do of course too), then this is a good reason to standardize the diagnostics and errors of the checking tools to the point where the workflows and automation can depend on them. Otherwise they will remain tools which are completely optional to run, or even worse, are not part of your normal work flow.
The most push back we get against making the language or compiler stricter is not for this reason though, it is mostly that the maintenance burden for existing code is considered to high.
But this illustrates how absurd the discussion is nowadays. Incrementally making things stricter and fixing warnings along the way is one of the most cost efficient way to improve quality and safety. Rewriting the software one of the most expensive. So if the former is rejected because the burden is too high, then obviously the overall aim to make things safer can not be too important and the push for rewrites must partially be motivated by other interests.
At a moment he mentions a trick he played on JPL folks, his static analysis tool, instead of showing all the issues found, would only display the top 10, without telling them there were actually more than 10.
So they felt motivated to fix them, it were only 10 after all.
Naturally eventually they became aware of the trick.
Or if you turn your argument around: if people depend on workflows and automation (I do of course too), then this is a good reason to standardize the diagnostics and errors of the checking tools to the point where the workflows and automation can depend on them. Otherwise they will remain tools which are completely optional to run, or even worse, are not part of your normal work flow.
However, like in any ISO languages, that only happens if enough people vote for it, and someone is willing to submit a paper in first place.
In some circles having the compiler dictate the way, and only true way, is seen as straightjacket programming.
But this illustrates how absurd the discussion is nowadays. Incrementally making things stricter and fixing warnings along the way is one of the most cost efficient way to improve quality and safety. Rewriting the software one of the most expensive. So if the former is rejected because the burden is too high, then obviously the overall aim to make things safer can not be too important and the push for rewrites must partially be motivated by other interests.
"The Power of Ten: Rules for Safety Critical Coding by Gerard Holzmann"
https://youtu.be/GRJtYwneG2Q?is=M0z7hnpQ78C8fLLP
At a moment he mentions a trick he played on JPL folks, his static analysis tool, instead of showing all the issues found, would only display the top 10, without telling them there were actually more than 10.
So they felt motivated to fix them, it were only 10 after all.
Naturally eventually they became aware of the trick.
Requiring all of them to adopt common linting rules at the same time is infeasible.
Also, it’s not true that linting rules never become part of the compiler. For example, the original lint (https://wolfram.schneider.org/bsd/7thEdManVol2/lint/lint.pdf) states
“The type-checking rules also require that, in structure references, the left operand of the -> be a pointer to structure”
and mentions warnings on such statements as
Modern C compilers also warn way more often about unreachable code, pointer incompatibilities, etc. than those from the 1970s