The task

I am trying to work out how best to add C++0x's override identifier to all existing methods that are already overrides in a large body of C++ cod开发者_Go百科e, without doing it manually.

(We have many, many hundreds of thousands of lines of code, and doing it manually would be a complete non-starter.)

Current idea

Our coding standards say that we should add the virtual keyword against all implicitly virtual methods in derived classes, even though strictly unnecessary (to aid comprehension).

So if I were to script the addition myself, I'd write a script that read all our headers, found all functions beginning with virtual, and insert override before the following semi-colon. Then compile it on a compiler that supports override, and fix all the errors in base classes.

But I'd really much rather not use this home-grown way, as:

• it's obviously going to be tedious and error-prone.
• not everyone has remembered, every time, to add the virtual keyword, so this method would miss out some existing overrides

Is there an existing tool?

So, is there already a tool that parses C++ code, detects existing methods that overrides, and appends override to their declarations?

(I am aware of static analysis tools such as PC-lint that warn about functions that look like they should be overrides. What I'm after is something that would actually munge our code, so that future errors in overrides will be detected at compiler-time, rather than later on in static analysis)

(In case anyone is tempted to point out that C++03 doesn't support 'override'... In practice, I'd be adding a macro, rather than the actual "override" identifier, to use our code on older compilers that don't support this feature. So after the identifier was added, I'd run a separate script to replace it with whatever macro we're going to use...)

Thanks in advance...

There is a tool under development by the LLVM project called "cpp11-migrate" which currently has the following features:

• convert loops to range-based for loops
• convert null pointer constants (like NULL or 0) to C++11 nullptr
• replace the type specifier in variable declarations with the auto type specifier
• add the override specifier to applicable member functions

This tool is documented here and should be released as part of clang 3.3. However, you can download the source and build it yourself today.

Edit

Some more info:

• Status of the C++11 Migrator - a blog post, dated 2013-04-15
• cpp11-migrate User’s Manual

Edit 2: 2013-09-07

"cpp11-migrate" has been renamed to "clang-modernize". For windows users, it is now included in the new LLVM Snapshot Builds.

Edit 3: 2020-10-07

"clang-modernize" has bee renamed to "Clang-Tidy".

Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit with its C++11-capable C++ Front End can do this.

DMS is a general purpose program transformation system for arbitrary programming languages; the C++ front end allows it to process C++. DMS parses, builds ASTs and symbol tables that are accurate (this is hard to do for C++), provides support for querying properties of the AST nodes and trees, allows procedural and source-to-source transformations on the tree. After all changes are made, the modified tree can be regenerated with comments retained.

Your problem requires that you find derived virtual methods and change them. A DMS source-to-source transformation rule to do that would look something like:

    source domain Cpp.  -- tells DMS the following rules are for C++

    rule insert_virtual_keyword (n:identifier, a: arguments, s: statements):
       method_declaration -> method_declaration " =
       " void \n(\a) { \s } "  ->  " virtual void \n(\a) { \s }"
       if is_implicitly_virtual(n).

Such rules match against the syntax trees, so they can't mismatch to a comment, string, or whatever. The funny quotes are not C++ string quotes; they are meta-quotes to allow the rule language to know that what is inside them has to be treated as target language ("Cpp") syntax. The backslashes are escapes from the target language text, allowing matches to arbitrary structures e.g., \a indicates a need for an "a", which is defined to be the syntactic category "arguments".

You'd need more rules to handle cases where the function returns a non-void result, etc. but you shouldn't need a lot of them.

The fun part is implementing the predicate (returning TRUE or FALSE) controlling application of the transformation: is_implicitly_virtual. This predicate takes (an abstract syntax tree for) the method name n. This predicate would consult the full C++ symbol table to determine what n really is. We already know it is a method from just its syntactic setting, but we want to know in what class context. The symbol table provides the linkage between the method and class, and the symbol table information for the class tells us what the class inherits from, and for those classes, which methods they contain and how they are declared, eventually leading to the discovery (or not) that the parent class method is virtual. The code to do this has to be implemented as procedural code going against the C++ symbol table API. However, all the hard work is done; the symbol table is correct and contains references to all the other data needed. (If you don't have this information, you can't possibly decide algorithmically, and any code changes will likely be erroneous).

DMS has been used to carry out massive changes on C++ code in the past using program transformations.(Check the Papers page at the web site for C++ rearchitecting topics).

(I'm not a C++ expert, merely the DMS architect, so if I have minor detail wrong, please forgive.)

I did something like this a few months ago with about 3 MB worth of code and while you say that "doing it manually would be a complete non-starter," I think it is the only way. The reason is that you should be applying the override keyword to the prototypes that are intended to override base class methods. Any tool that adds it will put it on the prototypes that actually override base class methods. The compiler already knows which methods those are so adding the keyword doesn't change anything. (Please note that I am not terribly familiar with the new standard and I am assuming the override keyword is optional. Visual Studio has supported override since at least VS2005.)

I used a search for "virtual" in the header files to find most of them and I still occasionally find another prototype that is missing the override keyword.

I found two bugs by going through that.

Eclipse CDT has a working C++ parser and semantic utilities. The latest version IIRC also has markers for overriding methods.

It wouldn't require much code to write a plug-in which would base on that and rewrite the code to contain the override tags where appropriate.

one option is to

Enable suggest-override compiler warning And then write a script which can insert override keyword to location pointed by the emitted warnings