https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89700
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #0) > The rules for the warning could be following: > Issue a warning if at least one of the class members has a move constructor, > class has a copy constructor and the move constructor is not implicitly > deleted. I like the idea in general, but I'm not sure this rule is right, or how to workaround the warning. A class might intentionally want to copy so its members are never left in a moved-from state, so the warning would not be helpful for that class. But I can't think of a convenient way for the class author to indicate that the behaviour is as intended. They can't delete the move constructor (that makes the class non-movable), and they can't default it (that would leave members in moved-from states).
