be careful, automated analyzers aren't smarter than their programmers...
This is very true. Especially when the C++ (not the C) analyzer is still considered to be in the beta stage at this point in time. However, I still think that it might be useful if a developer that has decent knowledge of the overall codebase took a look at the report. And if one would have the extra time and be really interested in this, one could also aid in improving the analyzer by posting 'false positives' against the Clang Static Analyzer component in the llvm-clang bug tracker:
http://llvm.org/bugs/And I do remember a developer state one time, that if an analyzer cant make sense of the code, that that might mean that piece of code is a good candidate for refactoring.
Anyway, thanks for all the responses so far.
PS: compiler warnings aren't smarter than their programmers either