Also: "The highest level of testing was performed with a high fidelity digital simulation of the computer, spacecraft hardware, and mission environment."
Whether or not this is acceptable for software and hardware to have gotten this unreliable is another question entirely.
For me, my phone is mission critical.
Think about how you're supposed to treat compiler warnings: You don't ignore them--they are there for a reason. Quite the opposite--you should use your compiler to treat warnings as errors, enforcing good development practice from the start.
The grandparent's comment was about the surprise and concern you feel when you see all of these warnings yet things still evidently "work". When I sit down to a new project, pull down the latest code, start to work with it and see thousands of compile-time and run-time warning messages, the alarm bells start going off in my brain: This project is barely held together.
GTK can't control yet alone offer patches for the 1 million + programs that depend upon it as a library.
I get some compiler warnings when I compile SQLite. Isn't this a problem?
Doesn't it indicate poor code quality?
Quality assurance in SQLite is done using full-coverage testing, not by
compiler warnings or other static code analysis tools. In other words, we
verify that SQLite actually gets the correct answer, not that it merely
satisfies stylistic constraints. Most of the SQLite code base is devoted
purely to testing. The SQLite test suite runs tens of thousands of separate
test cases and many of those test cases are parameterized so that hundreds
of millions of tests involving billions of SQL statements are run and
evaluated for correctness prior to every release. The developers use code
coverage tools to verify that all paths through the code are tested.
Whenever a bug is found in SQLite, new test cases are written to exhibit
the bug so that the bug cannot recur undetected in the future.
During testing, the SQLite library is compiled with special instrumentation
that allows the test scripts to simulate a wide variety of failures in
order to verify that SQLite recovers correctly. Memory allocation is
carefully tracked and no memory leaks occur, even following memory
allocation failures. A custom VFS layer is used to simulate operating
system crashes and power failures in order to ensure that transactions are
atomic across these events. A mechanism for deliberately injecting I/O
errors shows that SQLite is resilient to such malfunctions. (As an
experiment, try inducing these kinds of errors on other SQL database
engines and see what happens!)
We also run SQLite using Valgrind on Linux and verify that it detects no
problems.
Some people say that we should eliminate all warnings because benign
warnings mask real warnings that might arise in future changes. This is
true enough. But in reply, the developers observe that all warnings have
already been fixed in the builds used for SQLite development (various
versions of GCC, MSVC, and clang). Compiler warnings usually only arise
from compilers or compile-time options that the SQLite developers do not
use themselves.