aaron.ballman added a comment. In D102213#2754495 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102213#2754495>, @NoQ wrote:
> I totally agree that changing `forFunction()` to work correctly is the right > solution but backwards compatibility breakage is very real because > `forFunction()` accepts a `Matcher<FunctionDecl>` whereas `forCallable()` > accepts `Matcher<Decl>` which is a smaller set of matchers. Eg., > `forFunction(hasName())` is valid code but `forCallable(hasName())` is not > because `BlockDecl` isn't a `NamedDecl`. So, like, I suspect that not a lot > of code expects this to be **//the//** function, but a lot of code expects it > to be **//a//** function. See how much types did I have to change just to get > the infinite loop checker to compile in D102214 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102214>. > > If we're ok with such compatibility breakage then i'm all for it. That's a fair point. We try to not let changes break existing code, but we also don't make any stability guarantees that prevent us from doing so when that's the right answer. Would this breakage be loud for users of the C++ interface, or would the behavior silently change so that anyone who fails to add a `namedDecl()` in the right place stops getting expected results? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D102213/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D102213 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
