[Bug c++/16166] -Weffc++ finer granularity

["david at doublewise dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16166

--- Comment #4 from David Stone <david at doublewise dot net> 2012-05-29 02:13:53 UTC ---
I would recommend against naming each warning -Weffc++[n], but rather, give a
more descriptive name. My suggestion is to create a few warnings, so that
-Weffc++ would map to the following set of warnings (with their current
description for reference and my suggested name):

Effective C++:

* Item 11: Define a copy constructor and an assignment operator for classes
with dynamically allocated memory.

-Wcopy-resource-class

* Item 12: Prefer initialization to assignment in constructors.

-Wassignment-in-constructor

* Item 14: Make destructors virtual in base classes.

Already covered by -Wnon-virtual-dtor

* Item 15: Have operator= return a reference to *this.

-Wassignment-operator-return-value

* Item 23: Don't try to return a reference when you must return an object. 

-Wsuspicious-reference-return

More Effective C++:

* Item 6: Distinguish between prefix and postfix forms of increment and
decrement operators.

-Wprefix-postfix

* Item 7: Never overload &&, ||, or ,. 

Perhaps this should be split into two warnings of its own:
-Woverloaded-short-circuit
-Woverloaded-comma

In summary, you could simulate exactly the behavior of -Weffc++ by turning on
each of these warnings individually, or you could turn on -Weffc++ and
selectively turn off a few warnings that you don't want.