[PATCH] Warn on explicit copy constructors.
Alexander Kornienko
alexfh at google.com
Tue Apr 29 08:38:16 PDT 2014
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Arthur O'Dwyer
<arthur.j.odwyer at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > http://reviews.llvm.org/D3541
>
> > + if (Ctor->isOutOfLine() || Ctor->isImplicit() || Ctor->isDeleted())
> > return;
> > + if (Ctor->isExplicit() || Ctor->isCopyOrMoveConstructor()) {
> > + if (Ctor->isExplicit() && Ctor->isCopyOrMoveConstructor()) {
> > + SourceRange ExplicitTokenRange = FindToken(
> > + *Result.SourceManager, Result.Context->getLangOpts(),
> > + Ctor->getOuterLocStart(), Ctor->getLocEnd(), [](const Token
> &Tok) {
> > + return Tok.is(tok::raw_identifier) &&
> > + StringRef(Tok.getRawIdentifierData(),
> Tok.getLength()) ==
> > + "explicit";
> > + });
> > + if (ExplicitTokenRange.isValid()) {
> > + DiagnosticBuilder Diag =
> > + diag(ExplicitTokenRange.getBegin(),
> > + "Copy constructor declared explicit.");
>
> You mean "copy or move constructor"; and you could use a test for the
> move-constructor case.
>
Thanks for noting, I'll update the message and make the test cases more
diverse.
>
> There are corner cases such as
>
> C(const C&&);
> C(const C&, int i = 0);
> template<typename T> C(const T&);
>
> that would be interesting to test.
>
$ cat q.cc
class A {
public:
A(const A&&) {}
A(const A&, int i = 0) {}
template<typename T> A(const T&) {}
};
$ clang-tidy -checks=google -disable-checks='' q.cc --
q.cc:5:24: warning: Single-argument constructors must be explicit
[google-explicit-constructor]
template<typename T> A(const T&) {}
^
explicit
Is this what you expected? To me it seems reasonable.
>
> –Arthur
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140429/91de25df/attachment.html>
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list