https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Changing the warning text from "does X" to "may do X" wouldn't help because all instances of it (or all warnings) would have to use the latter form, and that's already implied by the former. Every GCC warning already means "something looks fishy here" and not "this is definitely a bug." Not just because not every suspicious piece of code is necessarily a bug, or because no warning is completely free of false positives, but also because every flow-sensitive warning also depends on whether control can reach the construct it warns about (as in: is the function where X occurs ever called?) Users who expect otherwise simply need to adjust their expectations (as per the manual).
