alexfh added a comment.
Sorry for the long delay.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/MoveConstructorInitCheck.cpp:40
@@ +39,3 @@
+ for (const auto *Ctor : CopyCtor->getParent()->ctors()) {
+ if (Ctor->isMoveConstructor() &&
+ Ctor->getAccess() <= AS_protected &&
----------------
clang-format?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/MoveConstructorInitCheck.cpp:46
@@ +45,3 @@
+ //
+ // FIXME: Determine whether the move constructor is a viable candidate
+ // for the ctor-initializer, perhaps provide a fixit that suggests
----------------
This seems to be rather important to do from the beginning. Otherwise the check
may be too noisy. BTW, did you run it over LLVM and Clang sources? Would be
useful for some smoke testing.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-move-constructor-init.cpp:64
@@ +63,3 @@
+struct J : I {
+ // CHECK-NOT: warning:
+ J(J &&RHS) : I(RHS) {} // ok
----------------
I'd suggest using FileCheck -implicit-check-not='{{warning|error}}:' instead of
stuffing the code with `// CHECK-NOT: warning:`. It will make the test more
consistent with the other tests that use the clang_tidy_test.sh script.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11784
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
