3 ms·

If everyone just runs a static analyzer after compiling you could have best of both worlds. For example the tool would complain if you don't use 'override'. Pro

If everyone just runs a static analyzer after compiling you could have best of both worlds. For example the tool would complain if you don't use 'override'. Problem is that not everyone runs the same tool. So at work I would like to compile with (for example) -Wconversion (warn about implicit conversions that lose precision). But this is impossible because Qt headers raise so many warnings on this. And because C++ has no module system I can either 1) fix all of Qt or 2) don't add the warning and keep writing old C++. I think you can guess what I will do.

jcelerier 8y ago
you can just include Qt with -isystem instead of -I, it will disable warnings for those headers
- AlexanderDhoore 8y ago
  Thx I will try this! EDIT Docs about this: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html
- hermitdev 8y ago
  Definitely recommend using -isystem for third party libs such as Boost, ACE, QT, Protobuf, etc. I strive for warning free code in my own, but dont have much control over the libs I use. Warnings from Protobuf are especially annoying due to Googles ill-thought-out disregard for signed/unsigned comparison (and their bullshit rationale in their style guideline) and continued use of NULL/0 as a nullptr constant (they only support C++11 and greater, no reason to not use nullptr now). I strive for clean compilation with "-Wall -Wextra -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant -Werror", but alas, hard to implement after the fact in legacy code.
wffurr 8y ago
Or use clang-tidy and limit the analysis or filter the results to files under your control.
- slacka 8y ago
  clang-tidy's for code cleanup. For serious static analysis, you need scan-build, which is dearly missing this functionality[1]. This is a serious issue for larger codebases with many external dependencies like LibreOffice.[2] [1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22594 https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22594 [2] https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39596#c33 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39596#c3...
jmount 8y ago
I like your point. Just to play with it a bit. Unenforced coding standards can't be relied on. So you want something like lint (of old), tidy-clang, or git check-in hooks to help enforce. At that point it becomes tempting to say "if it is part of the language, it should be in the compiler." But back to your point- it is easier for small groups to enforce their own standards than to change the compiler for everyone.
ensiferum 8y ago
I always make two header files with pragmas to disable compiler warnings and pops and then wrap any offending 3rd party header inclusions between those.

jcelerier 8y ago

you can just include Qt with -isystem instead of -I, it will disable warnings for those headers

AlexanderDhoore 8y ago
Thx I will try this! EDIT Docs about this: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html
hermitdev 8y ago
Definitely recommend using -isystem for third party libs such as Boost, ACE, QT, Protobuf, etc. I strive for warning free code in my own, but dont have much control over the libs I use. Warnings from Protobuf are especially annoying due to Googles ill-thought-out disregard for signed/unsigned comparison (and their bullshit rationale in their style guideline) and continued use of NULL/0 as a nullptr constant (they only support C++11 and greater, no reason to not use nullptr now). I strive for clean compilation with "-Wall -Wextra -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant -Werror", but alas, hard to implement after the fact in legacy code.

wffurr 8y ago

Or use clang-tidy and limit the analysis or filter the results to files under your control.

slacka 8y ago
clang-tidy's for code cleanup. For serious static analysis, you need scan-build, which is dearly missing this functionality[1]. This is a serious issue for larger codebases with many external dependencies like LibreOffice.[2] [1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22594 https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22594 [2] https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39596#c33 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39596#c3...

jmount 8y ago

I like your point. Just to play with it a bit. Unenforced coding standards can't be relied on. So you want something like lint (of old), tidy-clang, or git check-in hooks to help enforce. At that point it becomes tempting to say "if it is part of the language, it should be in the compiler." But back to your point- it is easier for small groups to enforce their own standards than to change the compiler for everyone.

ensiferum 8y ago

I always make two header files with pragmas to disable compiler warnings and pops and then wrap any offending 3rd party header inclusions between those.