JonasToth added inline comments.
================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-forwarding-reference-overload.rst:38
+constructors. We suppress warnings if the copy and the move constructors are
both
+disabled (deleted or private), because there is nothing the prefect forwarding
+constructor could hide in this case. We also suppress warnings for constructors
----------------
typo: prefect -> perfect
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-forwarding-reference-overload.cpp:21
+ Person(T &&n);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: function 'Person' can hide copy
and move constructors [misc-forwarding-reference-overload]
+
----------------
leanil wrote:
> JonasToth wrote:
> > could the check output a note when there was a userdefined constructor and
> > point to that one if it gets hidden? that would make it clearer, what and
> > how the problem occurs.
> What do you mean by "if it gets hidden"? Should I look for specific calls
> that are hijacked by the perfect forwarding ctor? Or just make a note on the
> user defined copy/move ctors any time I produce a warning (without looking at
> actual calls)?
> I think the former would be quite tricky to do.
> Also, what if the perfect forwarding ctor hides the compiler generated
> copy/move? Should I still make a note (maybe pointing to the class itself)?
```
class Person {
public:
// perfect forwarding ctor
template<typename T>
explicit Person(T&& n) {}
// (possibly compiler generated) copy ctor
Person(const Person& rhs);
};
```
a note pointing to a user defined ctor would be good i think.
with compiler generated operations the warning is clear.
emitting such a note would be a minor feature and if too complicated not worth
it, i guess.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30547
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
