When trying and failing to move an object because the move constructor is deleted, the error message tells you so.  When there is no move constructor at all, however, the error message is unhelpful.  For example, this:

#include <utility>

struct move_only
{
  move_only() = default;
  move_only(move_only&&) = default;
  move_only &operator = (move_only&&) = default;
};

struct broken : move_only
{
  move_only mo;
  ~broken() {}
};

void test()
{
  broken a;
  broken b(std::move(a));
}

is correctly rejected with this error:

move_base.cc: In function ‘void test()’:
move_base.cc:19:24: error: use of deleted function ‘broken::broken(const broken&)’
   broken b(std::move(a));
                        ^
move_base.cc:10:8: note: ‘broken::broken(const broken&)’ is implicitly deleted because the default definition would be ill-formed:
 struct broken : move_only
        ^
move_base.cc:10:8: error: use of deleted function ‘constexpr move_only::move_only(const move_only&)’
move_base.cc:3:8: note: ‘constexpr move_only::move_only(const move_only&)’ is implicitly declared as deleted because ‘move_only’ declares a move constructor or move assignment operator
 struct move_only
        ^
move_base.cc:10:8: error: use of deleted function ‘constexpr move_only::move_only(const move_only&)’
 struct broken : move_only
        ^

It would be much more helpful if there was another line saying something like "broken::broken(broken&&) is suppressed because broken has a user-defined destructor".