ymandel added a comment. In D131280#3709964 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131280#3709964>, @xazax.hun wrote:
> 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. I think we should try to reuse for the reasons you mention. We can evolve it with more features as needed. I'm kind of allergic to `const char *` so I propose that I first send a patch for that and can then follow up 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
