3

I am currently working on a codebase that is built on a foundation of sand.

There are numerous classes in supposedly tested libraries that violate the "Rule of 3". Most declare a non-trivial destructor, but are missing either a copy constructor or assignment operator.

Are there any compiler flags (gcc) or static analysis tools that warn when a class violates the rule of 3?

Currently we are using Coverity with GCC version 4.4.

mark
  • 7,381
  • 5
  • 36
  • 61

2 Answers2

0

C++test from Parasoft (commercial tool) has a rule (MRM-40) that covers "copy and destroy consistently" that looks like it would help you. Basically it says if you define any of the copy constructor, copy assignment operator, or destructor, you might need to define one or both of the others.

More info at http://www.parasoft.com/jsp/products/cpptest.jsp

CodeCurmudgeon
  • 727
  • 1
  • 4
  • 3
0

Coverity has. We use version 6.5. There is a checker MISSING_COPY_OR_ASSIGN.

jackua
  • 16
  • 3
  • This rule is not enabled with Coverity by default (might be considered to be a false positive). We have now enabled it and have highlighted a number of issues. – mark May 24 '13 at 07:36
  • @mark Please check --rule option. It enables all these: ASSIGN_NOT_RETURNING_STAR_THIS, COPY_WITHOUT_ASSIGN, MISSING_COPY_OR_ASSIGN, SELF_ASSIGN. Coverity has a nice docs @ server:8080/docs/en/index.html. Port can be different, up to config. – jackua May 24 '13 at 17:03
  • @mark Default set is very conservative. I ran 130 out of 150 checkers that I found every night with all department sources in a single build. With very parallel build it takes only 4 hours. I sorted all defects into 4 levels to treat them separately. I can share my classification. – jackua May 24 '13 at 17:57