dodicidodici wrote: > This check sounds a bit strange. Is this issue common in real-world projects, > do we have some data? It's the first time I've heard of it. Why would people > deviate from the standard signature for move constructors?
It's anecdotal, but I've encountered it in a few places in a private codebase. I don't think it's a *really* common issue, but it'd be nice to have a lint warning for this. > We could perhaps consider making this check a bit more general and enforce > that all 5 special member functions have the correct signature (including > ref-qualification and `noexcept`). There's `performance-noexcept-move-constructor` and `performance-noexcept-destructor` that cover missing `noexcept`s. Also yes, making it more generic is a great idea (altough I thought there were other lints that were doing that). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/122599 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
