That's the one warning that I like to disable. I hate having to write superfluous parentheses around conjunctions. I mean, come on. It's just as lame as requiring them around multiplications would be.
Even if /you/ know the order of operations, making them explicit with the parentheses provides clarity and allows future maintainers to quickly (and correctly) deduce the structure of the logical construct.
I generally only leave them out in short simple to follow 'normal math' order of operations.
Sure. The rule you suggest might be good coding practice --- but people can disagree, and their omitting the extra braces doesn't make the code wrong. An existing correct program shouldn't one day stop building because someone added a warning that enforces your preferred operating precedence marking style.
To be fair, a compiler contains all the infrastructure you'd want in a linter. I don't mind compilers having lint-like warnings: I just want them to very clear about the differences between these warnings and warnings that reflect functional problems with high probability.
What I’d like is for compiler authors to just admit this and include a lint mode.
There’s some practical and political difficulty with adding new warnings to a widely used compiler, partly because you don’t want to generate too many new warnings for existing code, partly because people compile with -Werror and upgrading the compiler will break (well, sprain) their build. Those difficulties would be easy to skirt by just tossing new warnings into lint mode and promoting them to compiler warnings if they turn out to be very useful in practice.
