jbcoe added a comment.
After some pondering I think I **will**extend move this check to
cppcoreguidelines and call it rule-of-five.
https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c21-if-you-define-or-delete-any-default-operation-define-or-delete-them-all
jbcoe planned changes to this revision.
jbcoe added a comment.
I'll move this to `modernize` and update docs when I get over my cold. Thanks
for the feedback.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16376
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
aaron.ballman added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16376#360527, @jbcoe wrote:
> The Sema diagnostic warning is only produced if a deprecated special member
> function is used whereas I want to find places where it would be
> compiler-generated and explicitly delete them. This is
jbcoe added a comment.
The Sema diagnostic warning is only produced if a deprecated special member
function is used whereas I want to find places where it would be
compiler-generated and explicitly delete them. This is useful for library code
where I don't have control over the warnings my
jbcoe added a comment.
It's more than the warning because it offers fixits. Other than that it should
be the same. Using the same code as used to warn on deprecated special members
would be a great idea. I'm not too sure where to start looking and how much of
Sema is exposed to clang-tidy
Is this anything more than the -Wdeprecated warning? (could we split out
the -Wdeprecated warning that deals with the deprecated implicit special
member generation, then just use that warning for this clang-tidy check?)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Jonathan B Coe via cfe-commits <
jbcoe marked 2 inline comments as done.
jbcoe added a comment.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16376
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
aaron.ballman added a comment.
A few minor nits, but one question (to me) remains: should this be in misc, or
is this a cppcoreguideline? I think the check, as is, is acceptable (and can
possibly be extended to be a rule-of-five check aliased under
cppcoreguidelines), but wanted to understand
jbcoe added a comment.
Tests are now more thorough and more readable.
Insertions are always pre-insertions as getting the correct post-insertion
position is ambiguous if end-of-line comments exist.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16376
jbcoe retitled this revision from "clang-tidy check: rule-of-five" to
"clang-tidy check: misc-deprecated-special-member-functions".
jbcoe updated the summary for this revision.
jbcoe set the repository for this revision to rL LLVM.
jbcoe updated this revision to Diff 47735.
jbcoe added a comment.
10 matches
Mail list logo
