samestep added a comment. In D131438#3710697 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131438#3710697>, @xazax.hun wrote:
> I feel like this is a repeated pattern. The CSA solved a very similar issue > by introducing the CallEvent class hierarchy. I also remember seeing many > disparate code snippets littered throughout the clang codebase that tries to > deal with the problem of not having facilities to treat call-like nodes > uniformly. At some point, I believe there were even some AST changes or > supporting structures proposed to ameliorate this problem, but I can't find > those at the moment. While I think it might be OK to introduce yet another > workaround here, this is a cleanup that is long overdue, and I hope someone > will have the time to actually improve the situation. Sorry for the rant, I > will actually look at the code but had to vent this. No worries at all for the rant, I appreciate the broader context. I was definitely surprised to learn that the two types don't share a common ancestor. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131438/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131438 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
