gui_starter_template VS sanitizers

Was checking that as well, can't find it indeed. I would recommend looking into the following: https://github.com/cpp-best-practices/gui_starter_template

gui_starter_template. This is a C++ Best Practices GitHub template for getting up and running with C++ quickly.

Next to language versions, spend time setting up your build system (CMake?) with all bells and whistles. You want unit tests, clang-tidy, include-what-you-use, sanitizers, fuzzing, clang-format, package managers. Just take a look at https://github.com/cpp-best-practices/gui_starter_template

https://github.com/cpp-best-practices/gui_starter_template from Jason Turner (aka lefticus) is quite a popular one (2.1k stars in Github)

I actually just tried to play around with what seems to be a "modern c++" boilerplate project.

It uses CMake, conan for packaging, clang-tidy and cpp-check, and has templates for fuzz and unit testing[1].

I found it because qtcreator and kdevelop were weirdly clunky and created partly broken qt projects and I figured I wanted to add a package manager and qt to the mix.

The template looks really fancy, but it's so incredibly slow, to the point of being unusable.

It's a ramble yes. But the point is modern C++ tools seem to have added some niceties to the language, but they also brought more of the main C++ issues, i.e. slow compile times and nasty boilerplate in the build process. Yes, I realize CMake isn't modern and there are a bunch of new build tools.

[1] https://github.com/cpp-best-practices/gui_starter_template

Clang-tidy file of the C++ Project Template

For cmake i find this useful: https://cliutils.gitlab.io/modern-cmake/ https://github.com/cpp-best-practices/gui_starter_template

Jason Turner (known from cppcast) has following project: https://github.com/cpp-best-practices/cpp_starter_project

this is a cpp_question, but anyway, I think this is exactly what you're looking for. Credits go to Jason Turner.

ASAN also checks for memory leaks like valgrind, the main difference with the tools is whether you can recompile all of libraries to get the compiler support for detection or whether binary instrumentation is better (https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerLe...)

I like Valgrind, but day-to-day, I find myself typically reaching for Sanitizers[1] instead (ASan, et. al.), especially since they're built-in to many compilers these days, and are a bit faster IME.

Are there any use cases that people here have experienced where Valgrind is their first choice?

[1] https://github.com/google/sanitizers

Use address sanitizers

While shipping debug symbols is something I recommend and has no side-effects aside from mere file-size (debug symbols are only loaded when used).

[1] https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/857

AddressSanitizer is really useful, it's similar to Valgrind but has much lower overhead.

And if you're up for it, I'd further recommend adding some ways to deal with buffer overflows in debug builds. The way I deal with this is by using Address-Sanitizer's manual poisoning api. Bonus point if you leave additional poisoned space between allocations so off by one errors are likely to end up in a poisoned region instead of nearby allocation.

It also doesn't hurt that Miri can find many kinds of unsafe violations even in unsafe blocks. Zig may get something like this one day, but even if it does, checking things at runtime is not a substitute for compile time -- the C++ Sanitizers haven't exactly solved the safety story for C++ even over a decade later.

This is where stuff like ASan is really useful.