tahonermann requested changes to this revision.
tahonermann added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
I added a few comments and suggested edits, but this is mostly looking good.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Sema/Sema.h:1790
SemaDiagnosticBuilder(const SemaDiagnosticBuilder &) = default;
+ SemaDiagnosticBuilder &operator=(const SemaDiagnosticBuilder &) = delete;
~SemaDiagnosticBuilder();
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Sema/Sema.h:1789-1791
+ SemaDiagnosticBuilder &operator=(SemaDiagnosticBuilder &&D) = delete;
SemaDiagnosticBuilder(const SemaDiagnosticBuilder &) = default;
+ SemaDiagnosticBuilder &operator=(const SemaDiagnosticBuilder &) = delete;
----------------
aaronpuchert wrote:
> Manna wrote:
> > @tahonermann This is follow-up comments from
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D149718?id=519331#inline-1452044.
> >
> > >>This change still declares a move assignment operator, but doesn't
> > >>provide a definition. The move constructor is implemented in
> > >>clang/lib/Sema/Sema.cpp, so I would expect to see the move assignment
> > >>operator definition provided there as well.
> >
> > I tried to define move assignment operator in ` clang/lib/Sema/Sema.cpp`
> > but it failed because class Sema has deleted implicit copy assignment
> > operator.
> >
> > ```
> > /// Sema - This implements semantic analysis and AST building for C.
> > class Sema final {
> > Sema(const Sema &) = delete;
> > void operator=(const Sema &) = delete;
> > ```
> > It seems like support for assignment is not desired, We probably need
> > deleted copy/move assignment operator.
> >
> These are also implicitly deleted. Some code styles want this explicitly
> spelled out, but I don't think ours does.
> I tried to define move assignment operator in clang/lib/Sema/Sema.cpp but it
> failed because class Sema has deleted implicit copy assignment operator.
It is still permissible to define a move assignment operator if the implicit
copy assignment operator is deleted. See https://godbolt.org/z/sGaWd9M44.
I think it is fine to disable support for assignment for this class pending use
cases. But, since a move constructor is explicitly defined, we should also be
explicit above move assignment. I added a suggested edit. Without that change,
I think Coverity will continue to complain.
================
Comment at:
clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporter/BugReporterVisitors.h:54
BugReporterVisitor(BugReporterVisitor &&) {}
+ BugReporterVisitor &operator=(const BugReporterVisitor &) = delete;
virtual ~BugReporterVisitor();
----------------
Here too; since a user-defined move constructor is declared, let's be explicit
about move assignment.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.h:833-837
+ ApplyDebugLocation &operator=(ApplyDebugLocation &&Other) {
+ CGF = Other.CGF;
+ Other.CGF = nullptr;
+ return *this;
+ }
----------------
Good catch! Since the destructor uses `CGF`, the defaulted move assignment
operator was wrong!
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/EHScopeStack.h:151
Cleanup(Cleanup &&) {}
+ Cleanup &operator=(const Cleanup &) = delete;
Cleanup() = default;
----------------
Here too; since a user-declared move constructor is present, let's be explicit
about support for move assignment.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D150411/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D150411
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
