r254423 - It appears that this horrible mutating copy constructor is unused. Kill it with fire.

[Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via cfe-commits
> <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 2015-Dec-01, at 09:15, Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits
>> > <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Author: aaronballman
>> > Date: Tue Dec  1 11:15:13 2015
>> > New Revision: 254423
>> >
>> > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=254423&view=rev
>> > Log:
>> > It appears that this horrible mutating copy constructor is unused. Kill
>> > it with fire.
>> >
>> > Modified:
>> >    cfe/trunk/include/clang/Sema/AttributeList.h
>> >
>> > Modified: cfe/trunk/include/clang/Sema/AttributeList.h
>> > URL:
>> > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Sema/AttributeList.h?rev=254423&r1=254422&r2=254423&view=diff
>> >
>> > ==============================================================================
>> > --- cfe/trunk/include/clang/Sema/AttributeList.h (original)
>> > +++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/Sema/AttributeList.h Tue Dec  1 11:15:13
>> > 2015
>> > @@ -557,11 +557,6 @@ public:
>> >   /// Create a new pool for a factory.
>> >   AttributePool(AttributeFactory &factory) : Factory(factory),
>> > Head(nullptr) {}
>> >
>> > -  /// Move the given pool's allocations to this pool.
>> > -  AttributePool(AttributePool &pool) : Factory(pool.Factory),
>> > Head(pool.Head) {
>> > -    pool.Head = nullptr;
>> > -  }
>> > -
>>
>> Moving without R-value references is weird, but it seems to me like
>> at least this was preventing double-ownership of the Head.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure now that this function has been removed, the copy
>> constructor will be auto-generated.  Should you `= delete` it?
>
>
> Or, preferably, reinstate it but make it a move constructor.

I originally replaced it with a move constructor, but felt that since
it was unused, no constructor was better. However, Duncan's point
still stands that the constructor would be auto-generated anyway, and
someone may accidentally copy or move this, so it should do the right
thing. I've fixed in r254515, thank you for the review!

~Aaron