http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/ is much more approachable, and gives a solid overview.
The introductory sentence gave me project-naming cancer:
> clang-tidy is a clang-based C++ “linter” tool.
Then why is it called tidy ??? It appears first on page three of google's search results for "C++ linter" in spite of the fact that anything from LLVM is probably a) current and b) of exceptional quality.
A little marketing-mindset would go a long, long way for these kinds of things.
Whilst the Ruby community lead by the example of DHH often takes this concept too far, it is inarguably effective.
Besides the clang-tidy, there is the ongoing efforts to improve VS analyzers, but I guess they will only be fully productized on VS "15", the upcoming release.
I also imagine other C++ linters are improving their C++ Core Guidelines support.
Under C++ Core Guidelines you are supposed to use [[unsafe]] annotation to mark such features.
When using make, it could look something like this:
CC := clang
CFLAGS := -std=c99
WFLAGS := -Weverything -Werror
NOWARN := vla
COMPILE = $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) $(WFLAGS) $(NOWARN:%=-Wno-%) -o $@ $<
foo.o: NOWARN += padded
foo.o bar.o: %.o: %.c
$(COMPILE)
make WFLAGS=""
As someone who doesn't work in C++ or have the benefit of 10 years experience to see the flaws, trying to write modern, safe C++ is essentially impossible. I spent a solid week trying to write something safe and only use C++14/17 features when they were available, and encountered a mountain of outdated- and mis-information about what one can and can't do, what is and isn't considered safe and why one certain feature is better than another.
It's nobody's fault that this happens, but with C++14 apparently fast becoming a language that is addressing it's #1 pitfall (safety) in an apparently very adequate way, it's frustrating that there's no "safe code" linter to stop rookies stepping on landmines.
Thanks for the list, it's a solid start, and the sibling comment about C++ Core Guidelines is another solid resource.