aaron.ballman added a subscriber: aaron.ballman.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
I share David's consideration for making this a compiler warning instead of a
clang-tidy check. Perhaps it would make sense to gather some data using this
check over some large code bases to see how often it triggers. If it's overly
chatty (or we discover interesting usage scenarios), then leaving it as a
clang-tidy check may make more sense.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/DeletedDefaultCheck.cpp:38
@@ +37,3 @@
+void DeletedDefaultCheck::check(const MatchFinder::MatchResult &Result) {
+ const StringRef Message = "%0 is marked '= default' but is actually "
+ "implicitly deleted, probably because %1; this "
----------------
This is a bit verbose. How about:
"%0 is explicitly defaulted but implicitly deleted, probably because %1;
definition can either be removed or explicitly deleted"
?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/DeletedDefaultCheck.cpp:47
@@ +46,3 @@
+ Diag << "default constructor"
+ << "an instance variable or a base class is lacking a default "
+ "constructor";
----------------
"non-static data member" instead of "instance variable"
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/DeletedDefaultCheck.cpp:55
@@ +54,3 @@
+ << "move constructor"
+ << "an instance variable or a base class is not copyable nor
movable";
+ }
----------------
s/not/neither
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18961
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
