This also papers over a potential defect, but also introduces a potentially semantic-breaking process into your compilation pipe.
Say you've proved memory safety on your source. What you're compiling is no longer that source you have a proof about.
Say you've proved memory safety on your source. What you're compiling is no longer that source you have a proof about.
That's what suppressing warnings tend to do, yes.
> but also introduces a potentially semantic-breaking process into your compilation pipe.
Only if the beautifier is broken.
> What you're compiling is no longer that source you have a proof about.
It sure is, again, unless the beautifier is broken.
The point I was making was in context of a discussion focused on mission-critical system. In that context, you can't just add a beautifier to your compilation pipeline with the argument that "the only way things will go wrong is if the beautifier is broken".