aaron.ballman added a comment. In D125402#3553825 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125402#3553825>, @erichkeane wrote:
> 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. Good catch! > 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. I think that might still not be correct because there could be a user-provided move constructor that's explicitly deleted. (So it has a move constructor, but the defaulted one is not deleted because it's user provided.) 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
