Prazek added a subscriber: Prazek.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines/RuleOfFiveAndZeroCheck.cpp:73-77
@@ +72,7 @@
+
+ checkRuleOfFiveViolation(Result, "dtor", "destructor");
+ checkRuleOfFiveViolation(Result, "copy-ctor", "copy constructor");
+ checkRuleOfFiveViolation(Result, "copy-assign", "copy assignment operator");
+ checkRuleOfFiveViolation(Result, "move-ctor", "move constructor");
+ checkRuleOfFiveViolation(Result, "move-assign", "move assignment operator");
+}
----------------
I think it would be much better to aggregate the diagnosics.
E.g. if I declare 4 special functions then I will get 4 lines of warnings, and
I won't even know what function did I forgot to declare.
So it should be better to fire diag on the first, or just one of the special
function and say "class %0 defines {{list_here}} but doesn't define
{{other_list}}"
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines/RuleOfFiveAndZeroCheck.h:19
@@ +18,3 @@
+
+/// Checks for classes where some, but not all, of the special member functions
+/// are defined.
----------------
no comma after all. But I might be wrong because I am not certified grammar nazi
================
Comment at:
docs/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines-rule-of-five-and-zero.rst:11
@@ +10,3 @@
+move constructor, move assignment operator and destructor. The default can be
+supressed by explciti user-definitions. The relationship between which
+functions will be supressed by definitions of other functions is complicated
----------------
typo s/expliciti/explicit
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22513
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
