malcolm.parsons added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30610#934617, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30610#934452, @malcolm.parsons wrote: > > > I'd like an `AllowDeletedCopyFunctions` option that allows move and > > destructor functions to be missing when copying is disabled. > > > > struct A { > > A(const A&) = delete; > > A& operator=(const A&) = delete; > > } > > > > > Doesn't `AllowMissingMoveFunctions` do almost that? If not, it should -- that > code produces a class that does not declare a move constructor or move > assignment operator per [class.copy]p8 and [class.copy.assign]p4, so that > would be a "missing move function". Granted, that doesn't handle the dtor > case, but I think an `AllowMissingDestructor` option might be overkill -- the > destructor isn't missing, it's implicitly declared as defaulted in that case, > but if the C++ Core Guidelines folks want it spelled out explicitly then, it > might be worth the option. Have they weighed in on your exception? The check is about providing a consistent set of special member functions. If you've written a destructor then you probably need to write copy functions to avoid double free. If you've defaulted the destructor, as often needed in a base class, then the default copy functions are still valid, so `AllowSoleDefaultDtor` makes sense. If you've written your own copy functions then you probably want to write your own move functions to allow moving, so `AllowMissingMoveFunctions` doesn't make sense. If you've deleted the copy functions, then you probably don't want the move functions either, so `AllowDeletedCopyFunctions` would make sense. I haven't asked the Core Guidelines folks. https://reviews.llvm.org/D30610 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
