如果你使用g++，你可以使用这个标志-Wunused

根据文档:

Warn whenever a variable is unused aside from its declaration, whenever a function is declared static but never defined, whenever a label is declared but not used, and whenever a statement computes a result that is explicitly not used.

http://docs.freebsd.org/info/gcc/gcc.info.Warning_Options.html

编辑:这是另一个有用的标志-Wunreachable-code根据文档:

This option is intended to warn when the compiler detects that at least a whole line of source code will never be executed, because some condition is never satisfied or because it is after a procedure that never returns.

CppDepend是一个商业工具，它可以检测未使用的类型、方法和字段，以及做更多的事情。它适用于Windows和Linux(但目前不支持64位)，并有两周的试用期。

免责声明:我不在那里工作，但我拥有这个工具的许可证(以及NDepend，它是。net代码的一个更强大的替代方案)。

对于那些好奇的人来说，这里有一个内置的(可定制的)检测死方法的规则示例，用CQLinq编写:

// <Name>Potentially dead Methods</Name>
warnif count > 0
// Filter procedure for methods that should'nt be considered as dead
let canMethodBeConsideredAsDeadProc = new Func<IMethod, bool>(
    m => !m.IsPublic &&       // Public methods might be used by client applications of your Projects.
         !m.IsEntryPoint &&            // Main() method is not used by-design.
         !m.IsClassConstructor &&      
         !m.IsVirtual &&               // Only check for non virtual method that are not seen as used in IL.
         !(m.IsConstructor &&          // Don't take account of protected ctor that might be call by a derived ctors.
           m.IsProtected) &&
         !m.IsGeneratedByCompiler
)

// Get methods unused
let methodsUnused = 
   from m in JustMyCode.Methods where 
   m.NbMethodsCallingMe == 0 && 
   canMethodBeConsideredAsDeadProc(m)
   select m

// Dead methods = methods used only by unused methods (recursive)
let deadMethodsMetric = methodsUnused.FillIterative(
   methods => // Unique loop, just to let a chance to build the hashset.
              from o in new[] { new object() }
              // Use a hashet to make Intersect calls much faster!
              let hashset = methods.ToHashSet()
              from m in codeBase.Application.Methods.UsedByAny(methods).Except(methods)
              where canMethodBeConsideredAsDeadProc(m) &&
                    // Select methods called only by methods already considered as dead
                    hashset.Intersect(m.MethodsCallingMe).Count() == m.NbMethodsCallingMe
              select m)

from m in JustMyCode.Methods.Intersect(deadMethodsMetric.DefinitionDomain)
select new { m, m.MethodsCallingMe, depth = deadMethodsMetric[m] }

If you are on Linux, you may want to look into callgrind, a C/C++ program analysis tool that is part of the valgrind suite, which also contains tools that check for memory leaks and other memory errors (which you should be using as well). It analyzes a running instance of your program, and produces data about its call graph, and about the performance costs of nodes on the call graph. It is usually used for performance analysis, but it also produces a call graph for your applications, so you can see what functions are called, as well as their callers.

这显然是对页面其他地方提到的静态方法的补充，它只会有助于消除完全不使用的类、方法和函数——它不会帮助找到实际调用的方法内部的死代码。

真正的答案是:你永远无法真正确定。

至少，对于重要的情况，你不能确定你已经得到了全部。考虑以下来自维基百科关于不可达代码的文章:

double x = sqrt(2);
if (x > 5)
{
  doStuff();
}

正如维基百科正确指出的那样，一个聪明的编译器也许能够捕捉到这样的东西。但是考虑一下修改:

int y;
cin >> y;
double x = sqrt((double)y);

if (x != 0 && x < 1)
{
  doStuff();
}

Will the compiler catch this? Maybe. But to do that, it will need to do more than run sqrt against a constant scalar value. It will have to figure out that (double)y will always be an integer (easy), and then understand the mathematical range of sqrt for the set of integers (hard). A very sophisticated compiler might be able to do this for the sqrt function, or for every function in math.h, or for any fixed-input function whose domain it can figure out. This gets very, very complex, and the complexity is basically limitless. You can keep adding layers of sophistication to your compiler, but there will always be a way to sneak in some code that will be unreachable for any given set of inputs.

还有一些输入集是永远不会被输入的。输入在现实生活中没有意义，或者在其他地方被验证逻辑阻塞。编译器没有办法知道这些。

这样做的最终结果是，虽然其他人提到的软件工具非常有用，但您永远无法确定您捕获了所有内容，除非您随后手动检查代码。即便如此，你也无法确定自己是否错过了什么。

恕我直言，唯一真正的解决方案是尽可能保持警惕，使用自动化，尽可能地重构，并不断寻找改进代码的方法。当然，这样做是个好主意。

我不认为它可以自动完成。

即使使用代码覆盖工具，也需要提供足够的输入数据来运行。

可能是非常复杂和昂贵的静态分析工具，如Coverity的或LLVM编译器可能会有所帮助。

但我不确定，我更喜欢手动代码审查。

更新

嗯. .不过，仅删除未使用的变量和未使用的函数并不难。

更新

看了其他人的回答和评论后，我更加坚定地认为这是不可能的。

您必须了解代码以获得有意义的代码覆盖率度量，如果您知道大量的手动编辑将比准备/运行/检查覆盖率结果更快。

我认为您正在寻找一个代码覆盖工具。代码覆盖工具将在代码运行时分析它，它将让您知道哪些代码行被执行了，执行了多少次，以及哪些代码没有执行。

您可以尝试使用这个开源代码覆盖工具:TestCocoon—用于C/ c++和c#的代码覆盖工具。