Skip to main content

g++ compiler option -Weffc++

I found it quite interesting to know that g++ compiler actually provides an option (-Weffc++) which enables warnings for constructs that violate guidelines in Effective C++!!

From g++ manual (man g++)
== Begin ==
Warn about violations of the following style guidelines from Scott Meyers’ Effective C++ book:

* Item 11: Define a copy constructor and an assignment operator for classes with dynamically allocated memory.
* Item 12: Prefer initialization to assignment in constructors.
* Item 14: Make destructors virtual in base classes.
* Item 15: Have "operator=" return a reference to *this.
* Item 23: Don’t try to return a reference when you must return an object.

Also warn about violations of the following style guidelines from Scott Meyers’ More Effective C++ book:

* Item 6: Distinguish between prefix and postfix forms of increment and decrement operators.
* Item 7: Never overload "&&", "││", or ",".

When selecting this option, be aware that the standard library headers do not obey all of these guidelines.

== End ==

Indeed, Effective C++ is a very nice work by Scott Meyer. He has compiled two lists of top C++ publications: top 5 books and top 5 articles. His list captures right set of very well written, excellent publications in C++ as I have read most of the literature in those lists. I would also like to add More C++ Gems to that list.

Comments

Ivan Novick said…
Cool!! I never heard that before
florin said…
it's a nice flag but it outputs way too many warnings: if you have a string as a member of a class and you don't care to call its constructor (because you know that the default constructor will be called), you'll get an useless warning;

it should have a switch to disable warnings for objects (or at least for the STL classes like strings).
r2p2 said…
@florin I didn't know about this flag until this post. But I already initialize all my member variables. I think it is the best way to be sure before some M$ compilers will break it. :D

Hope it is readable english. =)

Popular posts from this blog

Multi-dimensional arrays in C++11

What new can be said about multi-dimensional arrays in C++? As it turns out, quite a bit! With the advent of C++11, we get new standard library class std::array. We also get new language features, such as template aliases and variadic templates. So I'll talk about interesting ways in which they come together.

It all started with a simple question of how to define a multi-dimensional std::array. It is a great example of deceptively simple things. Are the following the two arrays identical except that one is native and the other one is std::array?

int native[3][4];
std::array<std::array<int, 3>, 4> arr;

No! They are not. In fact, arr is more like an int[4][3]. Note the difference in the array subscripts. The native array is an array of 3 elements where every element is itself an array of 4 integers. 3 rows and 4 columns. If you want a std::array with the same layout, what you really need is:

std::array<std::array<int, 4>, 3> arr;

That's quite annoying for two r…

Understanding Fold Expressions

C++17 has an interesting new feature called fold expressions. Fold expressions offer a compact syntax to apply a binary operation to the elements of a parameter pack. Here’s an example. template <typename... Args> auto addall(Args... args) { return (... + args); } addall(1,2,3,4,5); // returns 15. This particular example is a unary left fold. It's equivalent to ((((1+2)+3)+4)+5). It reduces/folds the parameter pack of integers into a single integer by applying the binary operator successively. It's unary because it does not explicitly specify an init (a.k.a. identity) argument. So, let add it. template <typename... Args> auto addall(Args... args) { return (0 + ... + args); } addall(1,2,3,4,5); // returns 15. This version of addall is a binary left fold. The init argument is 0 and it's redundant (in this case). That's because this fold expression is equivalent to (((((0+1)+2)+3)+4)+5). Explicit identity elements will come in handy a little la…

Folding Monadic Functions

In the previous two blog posts (Understanding Fold Expressions and Folding Functions) we looked at the basic usage of C++17 fold expressions and how simple functions can be folded to create a composite one. We’ll continue our stride and see how "embellished" functions may be composed in fold expressions.

First, let me define what I mean by embellished functions. Instead of just returning a simple value, these functions are going to return a generic container of the desired value. The choice of container is very broad but not arbitrary. There are some constraints on the container and once you select a generic container, all functions must return values of the same container. Let's begin with std::vector.
// Hide the allocator template argument of std::vector. // It causes problems and is irrelevant here. template <class T> struct Vector : std::vector<T> {}; struct Continent { }; struct Country { }; struct State { }; struct City { }; auto get_countries…