[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy] Add `performance-explicit-move-constructor` check (PR #122599)

[Carlos Galvez via cfe-commits]

carlosgalvezp 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?

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`).


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/122599