| Issue |
151005
|
| Summary |
clang-tidy cppcoreguidelines-special-member-functions should encourage rule of zero
|
| Labels |
clang-tidy
|
| Assignees |
|
| Reporter |
peakschris
|
The current wording in cppcoreguidelines-special-member-functions description and documentation encourages classes with a default or no-op destructor to be converted into rule of five classes.
Take:
*myclass.hxx*
```
class myclass
{
myclass();
~myclass();
}
```
*myclass.cxx*
```
myclass::~myclass()
{
}
```
clang-tidy on cxx yields:
`Use '= default' to define a trivial destructor (fix available)`
clang-tidy on hxx yields:
`Class 'myclass' defines a destructor but does not define a copy constructor, a copy assignment operator, a move constructor or a move assignment operator`
Neither message encourages the developer to remove the destructor hence creating a rule-of-zero class as per: https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#Rc-zero
Both messages encourage a new developer to add special functions instead.
Perhaps this requires a custom rule-of-zero check
![]()
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
