Not quite end of story: there is an exception where the destructor is user defined solely to declare it virtual for a polymorphic base class. In such a case, the compiler generated copy constructor and assignment operator may well still be correct.
There is also a singleton class that may have a non-trivial destructor, but will not want working copy constructor or assignment operator. In such cases, a common technique is to declare copy constructor and assignment operator private, but not to define/implement them.
It is a philosophical argument whether a copy constructor declared private but not actually defined can be said to exist
Right 98% of the time, and don't care about the other 3%.
If I seem grumpy or unhelpful in reply to you, or tell you you need to demonstrate more effort before you can expect help, it is likely you deserve it. Suck it up, Buttercup, and read this, this, and this before posting again.