[PATCH] D150411: [NFC][Clang][Coverity] Fix Static Code Analysis Concerns with copy without assign

[Aaron Puchert via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaronpuchert added a comment.

I'd probably abstain from explicitly deleting what is already implicitly deleted, but otherwise this looks good to me. Thanks!



================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Sema/Sema.h:1790
     SemaDiagnosticBuilder(const SemaDiagnosticBuilder &) = default;
+    SemaDiagnosticBuilder &operator=(const SemaDiagnosticBuilder &) = delete;
     ~SemaDiagnosticBuilder();
----------------
tahonermann wrote:
> 
Being explicit is certainly a good thing, but the C++ committee wants to go into the direction of "copy/move operations are implicitly deleted if any of them or the destructor is user-declared." See [depr.impldec](https://eel.is/c++draft/depr.impldec). It is already partially the case, for example here. So why do need to spell something out explicitly when the language goes into the direction of being even more implicit?


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D150411/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D150411