c++ - Tools to generate higher-quality error messages for template-based code?

Question

Concepts, that would render these tools unnecessary, are not part of C++11.

• STLFilt would have been one option but it is no longer maintained.

• Clang claims to give expressive diagnostics although important C++11 features are not available yet.

• colorgcc seems to be abandoned since 1999.

What production quality tools are available to decipher error messages stemming from template-based code? Eclipse-CDT support would be nice too. :)

If I give up on C++11, what options do I have for C++98?

---

Related questions:

• Deciphering C++ template error messages
• Improving g++ output

Answer 1

Let's have a stab at an answer (I marked this community wiki so we get a good response together)...

I'm working since a long time with templates and error messages have generally improved in some way or another:

• Writing a stack of errors creates a lot more text but also typically includes the level the user is looking at and this generally includes a hint at what the actual problem is. Given that the compiler only sees a translation unit tossed at it, there isn't a lot which can be done determining which error in the stack is the one most suitable for the user.
• Using concept checkers, i.e. classes or functions which exercise all the required members of template arguments and possibly generating errors messages using static_assert() give the template author a way to tell users about assumptions which apparently don't hold.
• Telling the user about types he writes rather than expanding all typedefs as the compiler like to see at the lowest level also helps. clang is rather good at this and actually gives you error messages e.g. talking about std::string rather than expanding things type to whatever it ends up to be.

A combination of the technique actually causes e.g. clang to create quite decent error message (even if it doesn't implement C++2011, yet; however, no compiler does and as far as I can tell gcc and clang are leading the pack). I know other compiler developers actively work on improving the template error messages as lots of programmers have discovered that templates actually are a huge leap forward even though the error messages are something which takes a bit of getting used to.

One problem tools like stlfilt face is that C++ compilers and libraries are under active development. This results in error messages shifting all the time, causing the tool to receive different outputs. While it is good that compiler writers work on improving error messages, it certainly makes life harder for people who try to work from the error messages they got. There is another side to this as well: once a certain error pattern is detected to be common and is picked up e.g. by stlfilt (well, it isn't actively maintained as far as I know) compiler writers are probably keen to report the errors following these patterns directly, possibly also providing additional information available to the compiler but not emitted before. Put differently, I would expect that compiler writers are quite receptive to reports from users describing common error situations and how they are best reported. The compiler writers may not encounter the errors themselves because the code they are working on is actually C (e.g. gcc is implemented in C) or because they are so used to certain template techniques that they avoid certain errors (e.g. omission of typename for dependent types).

Finally, to address the question about concrete tools: the main "tool" I'm using when I get kind of stuck with a compiler complaining about some template instantiation is to use different compilers! Although it isn't always the case but often one compiler reports an entirely incomprehensible error messages which only makes sense after seeing the fairly concise report from another compiler (in case you are interested, I regularly use recent version of gcc, clang, and EDG for this). I'm not aware of a readily packaged too like stlfilt, however.