aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30610#934891, @malcolm.parsons wrote:
> I have 1000s of warnings from this check. > > A lot of them are about google tests: > warning: class 'Foo_Bar_Test' defines a copy constructor and a copy > assignment operator but does not define a destructor > [cppcoreguidelines-special-member-functions] > I'd like an option to suppress these. > > It warns about classes that use boost::noncopyable: > warning: class 'Foo' defines a non-default destructor but does not define a > copy constructor or a copy assignment operator > [cppcoreguidelines-special-member-functions] > class Foo : boost::noncopyable > I think this is a bug in the check. It is not a bug in the check; the check implements the C++ Core Guideline rule. Hence the comment about discussing it with them. I think your use cases are compelling and might warrant an option. However, with that in mind combined with `AllowMissingMoveFunctions`, it makes me think this check should not have any of the options -- it's a sign that your code base isn't ready to comply with C.21 in C++ Core Guidelines. The wording for the guideline is pretty specific about what the authors intend: "Compilers enforce much of this rule and ideally warn about any violation." and its enforcement "(Simple) A class should have a declaration (even a =delete one) for either all or none of the special functions." I'm not saying we shouldn't add this option you're looking for, but I'm still a bit uncomfortable with coming up with option combinations that effectively disable the entire point to a check in a coding standard -- that's why we allow you to disable the check more visibly. > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30610#934862, @fgross wrote: > >> My 2 cents on this one: Even with `AllowMissingMoveFunctions=1` at least the >> missing destructor definition should be diagnosed, because it violates the >> classic rule of three. If you delete your copy operations, you likely have >> some resources that need to be taken care of in your destructor, so this >> piece of code would worry me. Better be clear about it and explicitly >> default the destructor. > > > This is a rule of zero class, but with copying disabled; the resources are > just as safe as with a normal rule of zero class. Depending on the resource; you might allocate a resource in the constructor, deleted copy (and thus no move) operators, but still want to release the resource in the destructor. https://reviews.llvm.org/D30610 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
