================
@@ -224,10 +224,19 @@ void SpecialMemberFunctionsCheck::checkForMissingMembers(
SpecialMemberFunctionKind::CopyAssignment);
}
+ const bool CopyImplicitlyDeleted =
+ HasImplicitDeletedMember(SpecialMemberFunctionKind::CopyConstructor) &&
+ HasImplicitDeletedMember(SpecialMemberFunctionKind::CopyAssignment);
+ const bool MoveMissing =
+ !HasMember(SpecialMemberFunctionKind::MoveConstructor) &&
+ !HasMember(SpecialMemberFunctionKind::MoveAssignment);
----------------
zeyi2 wrote:
> Why we use HasImplicitDeletedMember for copy but not for move as well?
[`RequireMembers()`](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/5c715d56884364a3b05acb4d3e6b52a911f14667/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines/SpecialMemberFunctionsCheck.cpp#L188)
already handles the symmetric case where the requested pair is implicitly
deleted. That is why using `HasImplicitDeletedMember()` for move here would not
add anything new.
The motivating case for the PR is a bit different:
```cpp
struct A : boost::noncopyable {
~A() { std::cout << "dtor\n"; }
};
```
The copy operations are implicit and deleted, but the move operations are not
implicit-deleted members. They are not declared at all (Please see
https://eel.is/c++draft/class.copy.ctor#8 and
https://eel.is/c++draft/class.copy.assign#4).
Therefore `HasImplicitDeletedMember()` for the move constructor and move
assignment operator would still be false, which is why the existing
`RequireMembers()` handling did not suppress this diagnostic.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/207586
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
