Removed unimplemented move constructor from StorageAccount #27991
Conversation
Although the move constructor was marked '=default' the compiler was unable to generate it. Given all member data of the class as atomics of builtin types, a move constructor would be no different from a copy constructor anyway.
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-27991/11886
|
|
A new Pull Request was created by @Dr15Jones (Chris Jones) for master. It involves the following packages: Utilities/StorageFactory @cmsbuild, @smuzaffar, @Dr15Jones can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:
You can see more details here: |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
core-approved
fully-signed
and removed
core-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
+1 |
PR description:
Although the move constructor was marked '=default' the compiler was unable to generate it. Given all member data of the class as atomics of builtin types, a move constructor would be no
different from a copy constructor anyway.
PR validation:
Compiling using clang no longer generates the warning.