https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96501
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Also, how would users suppress this warning for cases where it's not wanted? Plenty of classes don't need a move constructor because moving is not more efficient than copying, but they don't want a defaulted move constructor. Basically, the code isn't necessarily wrong, and there's no easy way to tell whether the lack of a move constructor is a problem, or should be changed.
