[PATCH] D54745: [clang-tidy] Don't generate incorrect fixes for class with deleted copy constructor in smart_ptr check.

JonasToth added a comment. IMHO this patch is fine, but i think a language expert (not me :D) should take a look (@aaron.ballman ?) as its complicated :) Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D54745 ___ cfe-commits mailing

[PATCH] D54745: [clang-tidy] Don't generate incorrect fixes for class with deleted copy constructor in smart_ptr check.

hokein added a comment. Thanks for the review. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54745#1303972, @JonasToth wrote: > Does make_unique require the copy constructor if it could move? No, in that case, move constructor will be used. I have updated the patch to include these cases. > And would the

[PATCH] D54745: [clang-tidy] Don't generate incorrect fixes for class with deleted copy constructor in smart_ptr check.

hokein updated this revision to Diff 174760. hokein marked 2 inline comments as done. hokein added a comment. Address review comments, handle move constructor as well. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D54745 Files: clang-tidy/modernize/MakeSmartPtrCheck.cpp

[PATCH] D54745: [clang-tidy] Don't generate incorrect fixes for class with deleted copy constructor in smart_ptr check.

JonasToth added a comment. Does make_unique require the copy constructor if it could move? And would the same argument apply to the move-constructors as the arguments are forwarded? What would happen in the obscure case of a public copy-constructor, but private move-constructor (not saying it

[PATCH] D54745: [clang-tidy] Don't generate incorrect fixes for class with deleted copy constructor in smart_ptr check.

hokein created this revision. hokein added reviewers: JonasToth, aaron.ballman. Herald added a subscriber: xazax.hun. The fix for aggregate initialization (`std::make_unique(Foo {1, 2})` needs to see Foo copy constructor, otherwise we will have a compiler error. So we only emit the check warning.