Fix Clang-trunk warnings about special members deprecated in C++20.#5829
Merged
aardappel merged 1 commit intogoogle:masterfrom Mar 23, 2020
Quuxplusone:assign-operators
Merged
Fix Clang-trunk warnings about special members deprecated in C++20.#5829aardappel merged 1 commit intogoogle:masterfrom Quuxplusone:assign-operators
aardappel merged 1 commit intogoogle:masterfrom
Quuxplusone:assign-operators
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
@vglavnyy: I don't see any obvious way to add you as an "Assignee" and/or "Reviewer", but, please take a look. |
vglavnyy
approved these changes
Mar 23, 2020
| : fbb_(_fbb) { | ||
| start_ = fbb_.StartTable(); | ||
| } | ||
| TypeBuilder &operator=(const TypeBuilder &); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, flatbuffers::FlatBufferBuilder &fbb_; blocks copy and move even if there was an idea to make &operator= private.
For example:
include/flatbuffers/reflection.h:365:8: error: definition of implicit copy
constructor for 'pointer_inside_vector<flatbuffers::Table, unsigned char>'
is deprecated because it has a user-declared copy assignment operator
[-Werror,-Wdeprecated-copy]
void operator=(const pointer_inside_vector &piv);
^
It's unclear why the old code wanted to declare a public `operator=`
without defining it; that just seems like a misunderstanding of the C++03 idiom
for deleting a member function. And anyway, we don't *want* to delete the
assignment operator; these are polymorphic types that do not follow value
semantics and nobody should ever be trying to copy them. So the simplest fix
is just to go back to the Rule of Zero: remove the declaration of `operator=`
and let the compiler do what it wanted to do originally anyway.
"The best code is no code."
Also, update the generated .h files.
Fixes #5649.
Contributor
Author
|
Updated (including your suggested fix to reflection.cpp). I think that it would probably be useful to investigate and eliminate all uses of |
Collaborator
|
LGTM |
antiagainst
added a commit
to antiagainst/iree
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2020
This includes the fix for Clang 10: google/flatbuffers#5829
antiagainst
added a commit
to antiagainst/iree
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2020
This includes the fix for Clang 10: google/flatbuffers#5829
LuckyRu
pushed a commit
to LuckyRu/flatbuffers
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2020
…oogle#5829) For example: include/flatbuffers/reflection.h:365:8: error: definition of implicit copy constructor for 'pointer_inside_vector<flatbuffers::Table, unsigned char>' is deprecated because it has a user-declared copy assignment operator [-Werror,-Wdeprecated-copy] void operator=(const pointer_inside_vector &piv); ^ It's unclear why the old code wanted to declare a public `operator=` without defining it; that just seems like a misunderstanding of the C++03 idiom for deleting a member function. And anyway, we don't *want* to delete the assignment operator; these are polymorphic types that do not follow value semantics and nobody should ever be trying to copy them. So the simplest fix is just to go back to the Rule of Zero: remove the declaration of `operator=` and let the compiler do what it wanted to do originally anyway. "The best code is no code." Also, update the generated .h files. Fixes google#5649.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For example:
It's unclear why the old code wanted to declare a public
operator=without defining it; that just seems like a misunderstanding of the C++03 idiom
for deleting a member function. And anyway, we don't want to delete the
assignment operator; these are polymorphic types that do not follow value
semantics and nobody should ever be trying to copy them. So the simplest fix
is just to go back to the Rule of Zero: remove the declaration of
operator=and let the compiler do what it wanted to do originally anyway.
"The best code is no code."
Fixes #5649.