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.
