Bug1: On constructor without parameter, it sometimes suggests that it can be replaced with '= default', although base class or member initialization are necessary. This usually happens when the initializer list is complex, and VA cannot see through every initialization step.
Bug2: It suggests derived class destructor is "overriding function without 'override' specifier". Needless to say, derived destructor never 'overrides' base destructor.
As I understand the codeinspection for adding =default to construtors: VA seems to inspect only the code of the constructors and no the members. That's not enough!
Example: add an unique_ptr as member variable. Copy all other members in the copy-ctor. With explicit copy ctor: all other member get copied and the unique_ptr keeps pointing to null. With default copy ctor: (suggested from VA) compile error
Code inspection needs a better understanding of the code before proposing such changes!
Code inspection on constructor / destructor
Posted - Apr 25 2017 : 6:20:47 PM
