[PATCH] D30610: [clang-tidy] Added options to cppcoreguidelines-special-member-functions check

[Florian Gross via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

fgross added a comment.

> If you've written your own copy functions then you probably want to write your own move functions to allow moving, so `AllowMissingMoveFunctions` doesn't make sense.

The scenario I had in mind was legacy code which was written back when it still was the "rule of three" instead of the "rule of five". Those classes with defined destructor and copy operations are still perfectly safe, because moving them falls back to copying. They may not be perfectly tuned for performance, but having no move operations is not an indication for some resoure management error. That's why I do think this options makes sense.

> I'd like an `AllowDeletedCopyFunctions` option that allows move and destructor functions to be missing when copying is disabled.
> 
>   struct A {
>     A(const A&) = delete;
>     A& operator=(const A&) = delete;
>   }
>    

My 2 cents on this one: Even with `AllowMissingMoveFunctions=1` at least the missing destructor definition should be diagnosed, because it violates the classic rule of three. If you delete your copy operations, you likely have some resources that need to be taken care of in your destructor, so this piece of code would worry me. Better be clear about it and explicitly default the destructor.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D30610