erichkeane added a comment. In D125402#3553802 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125402#3553802>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D125402#3517865 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125402#3517865>, @nlee wrote: > >> How about adding CXXRecordDecl::hasMoveConstructor() to ensure the type is >> movable? I ran a test with OpenCV(c++11), and it returned some useful >> warnings: > > I don't think that will be quite correct -- IIRC, that would still return > true if the move constructor was deleted. `hasSimpleMoveConstructor()` and > `hasSimpleMoveAssignment()` might be a better approach. The 'Simple' version might not be quite right... That is implemented as: bool hasSimpleMoveConstructor() const { return !hasUserDeclaredMoveConstructor() && hasMoveConstructor() && !data().DefaultedMoveConstructorIsDeleted; } So this would still warn about user-defined move constructors. HOWEVER, I might suggest `hasMoveConstructor() && !defaultedMoveConstructorIsDeleted()` for the ctor test. There is similar storage for the 'DefaultedMoveAssignmentIsDeleted`, but it isn't exposed, so you might need to add a function to expose it in DeclCXX.h. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D125402/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D125402 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
