> Unfortunately I am unable to make lttng work (with both the existing message processor > report and my new report) so I haven't been able to confirm the output
Did you follow the instructions in HACKING.md (especially the LD_PRELOAD note)?
984 +protected: 985 + InputReport() = default; 986 + 987 +private: 988 + InputReport(InputReport const&) = delete; 989 + InputReport& operator=(InputReport const&) = delete;
The preferred form is to make the deleted copy constructor and assignment operator protected too, for compactness.
1043 + protected: 1044 + NullInputReport(NullInputReport const&) = delete; 1045 + NullInputReport& operator=(NullInputReport const&) = delete;
1088 +protected: 1089 + InputReport(InputReport const&) = delete; 1090 + InputReport& operator=(InputReport const&) = delete;
There is no need to repeat the deletions, they are enforced by the base class.
« Back to merge proposal
> Unfortunately I am unable to make lttng work (with both the existing message processor
> report and my new report) so I haven't been able to confirm the output
Did you follow the instructions in HACKING.md (especially the LD_PRELOAD note)?
984 +protected: InputReport const&) = delete; (InputReport const&) = delete;
985 + InputReport() = default;
986 +
987 +private:
988 + InputReport(
989 + InputReport& operator=
The preferred form is to make the deleted copy constructor and assignment operator protected too, for compactness.
1043 + protected: (NullInputRepor t const&) = delete; (NullInputRepor t const&) = delete;
1044 + NullInputReport
1045 + NullInputReport& operator=
1088 +protected: InputReport const&) = delete; (InputReport const&) = delete;
1089 + InputReport(
1090 + InputReport& operator=
There is no need to repeat the deletions, they are enforced by the base class.