xazax.hun added a comment. In D131280#3709781 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131280#3709781>, @ymandel wrote:
> Thanks. That looks good, but I'm concerned that it only counts the arguments > and doesn't look at their types. I'd imagine this will be a limitation down > the line when we want to deal with overload sets w/ the same number of > arguments, but different types. Yeah, it is not a fully baked solution at this point, but it does implement some of the features that you plan to add (like skipping inline namespaces), and some more (argument count, checking if a function is from a system header). > Aside: why the `const char *` interface? Do you think owners would be open to > a `llvm::StringRef` overload for the constructor? I am sure that the analyzer community is open to any improvements. The main reason I'd be glad if that facility could be shared across the two static analysis solution because improvements from one community could be benefited by the other, also the code would be more similar which could be great for cross pollination of ideas. If you think it is feasible to reuse some of those facilities for your purposes, I am happy to review all of those patches. If it is not a good fit for some reason, I am ok with having a new custom solution here. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131280/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131280 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
