aaron.ballman added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18264#379159, @xazax.hun wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18264#379092, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > Also, it's quite common for older code (pre C++11) to return void and make > > these functions private (with no definition) as an early form of deleting > > the operator. > > > This checker will not warn on private methods. Good deal. > About EDSLs, I think they are not the common case. In case it is important, > it might make sense to make this configurable, but I think the minority of > the C++ projects have EDSLs so it make more sense to warn on those cases by > default. What do you think? That's why I am wondering about how much this increases the false positive rate. I don't think DSLs are going to be a huge problem, but if it turns out they are, then a configuration option makes sense. If we don't see a large increase, then no need to waste the effort on an option. Also, this appears to be changing the behavior of the cppcoreguidelines-c-copy-assignment-signature alias. If the core guidelines don't prohibit this behavior under that rule, we should not trigger the diagnostic if the user enabled the check via cppcoreguidelines-c-copy-assignment-signature instead of misc-assign-operator-signature. Check out MoveConstructorInitCheck as an example of how we have handled this before. http://reviews.llvm.org/D18264 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
