alexfh added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/UserDefinedCopyWithoutAssignmentCheck.cpp:32
@@ +31,3 @@
+
+ if (MatchedDecl->isImplicit())
+ return;
----------------
This check should be done in the matcher.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/UserDefinedCopyWithoutAssignmentCheck.cpp:49
@@ +48,3 @@
+ llvm::raw_string_ostream Insertion(S);
+ Insertion << "\n" << ClassName << "& operator = (const " << ClassName << "&)
= delete;";
+
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I think we usually prefer `operator=` to `operator =`, but am not certain.
+1 for `operator=`
Also, I'd use `(llvm::Twine("\n") + ClassName + ...).str()` instead of the
stream.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/UserDefinedCopyWithoutAssignmentCheck.cpp:51
@@ +50,3 @@
+
+ Diag << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(CCtorEnd, Insertion.str());
+}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> We probably do not want to generate this fixit unless we are compiling for at
> least C++11. We should have a test for C++98.
Just insert this at the start of `registerMatchers`:
if (!getLangOpts().CPlusPlus11)
return;
================
Comment at:
docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-user-defined-copy-without-assignment.rst:6
@@ +5,3 @@
+
+MSVC 2015 will generate an assignment operator even if the user defines a copy
constructor.
+This check finds classes with a user-defined (including deleted)
----------------
Is this problem only relevant to MSVC 2015? Is MSVC's behavior
standard-compliant in this case?
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16376
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
