aaron.ballman added subscribers: dblaikie, rsmith. ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/UserDefinedCopyWithoutAssignmentCheck.cpp:51 @@ +50,3 @@ + + Diag << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(CCtorEnd, Insertion.str()); +} ---------------- alexfh wrote: > 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; I think the check is still useful in C++98 mode assuming older versions of MSVC (before they started supporting C++11) have the same behavior. The fixit isn't useful, but warning the user about the problem is.
================ 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) ---------------- alexfh wrote: > Is this problem only relevant to MSVC 2015? Is MSVC's behavior > standard-compliant in this case? MSVC's behavior is standards compliant, but is deprecated behavior. [class.copy]p18: "If the class definition does not explicitly declare a copy assignment operator, one is declared implicitly. If the class definition declares a move constructor or move assignment operator, the implicitly declared copy assignment operator is defined as deleted; otherwise, it is defined as defaulted (8.4). The latter case is deprecated if the class has a user-declared copy constructor or a user-declared destructor." Now that I think about it more, I thought @dblaikie or @rsmith made a check for this once under -Wdeprecated. It looks like Richard did in r183884. 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
