include-what-you-use VS Cppcheck

Interesting...how does it compare to https://github.com/include-what-you-use/include-what-you-use ?

Build Insights in Visual Studio, include-what-you-use).

Looks like https://include-what-you-use.org/ might do that.

If you are worried about includes, use https://github.com/include-what-you-use/include-what-you-use and stop thinking about it.

Getting rid of that is not straightforard, though some tools can help with that

You can use the tool https://github.com/include-what-you-use/include-what-you-use to do this for for. It tracks included files and can give comment for what is used from each file. It also warns you when you include files that you don’t use

Invisible imports (e.g. traits). In Python, everything is fully namespaced (unless you from import * in which case all bets are off). It's always explicit where a name is coming from. C is the opposite: #include lets you refer to anything defined in the headers with no namespacing. That's why a common strategy (include what you use) has an associated code style: after every non-std #include you have a comment saying which of its definitions you are using. Of course, Rust is much less implicit, but I still sometimes struggle with traits. For example, you can use tokio::net::TcpStream, but you need to also use tokio::io::AsyncReadExt for the .read trait to be defined on TcpStream. This makes it hard (for me) to answer questions like "what traits are currently available in this scope?" and "why is this module being imported?"

Aside from being closed source and not available on all architectures, how does it compare to iwyu(https://include-what-you-use.org/) or clang's relatively recent include-fixer which is also accessible via clangd?

I set up include-what-you-use and I let it tell me which headers should be where. The IWYU rules would have put all needed headers including in the cpp file.

I dedicated Sunday morning to going over the documentation of the linters we use in the project. The goal was to understand all options and use them in the best way for our project. Seeing their manuals side by side was nice because even very similar things are solved differently. Cppcheck is the most configurable and best documented; JSON Lint lies at the other end.

Using infer, someone else exploited null-dereference checks to introduce simple affine types in C++. Cppcheck also checks for null-dereferences. Unfortunately, that approach means that borrow-counting references have a larger sizeof than non-borrow counting references, so optimizing the count away potentially changes the semantics of a program which introduces a whole new way of writing subtly wrong code.

Also check out (cppcheck)[https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck] if you want more static analysis

My browser refuses to open that link. This is better: https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck

cppcheck - Extensible C/C++ static analyzer focused on finding bugs.

and five C/C++ static code analyzers: * clang-tidy * oclint * cppcheck * cpplint (recently added!) * include-what-you-use (recently added!)

Start by feeding your codebase to a static analysis tool like cppcheck, to rule out obvious bound-checking mistakes in it.

Cppcheck is free. I've previously used it with a C++ project.