Szelethus added a comment. In D119004#3297025 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119004#3297025>, @steakhal wrote:
> I strongly belive that this should be an overload to the existing 'matches' > API. Maybe add a comment that prefer the other overload if can. But having an > overload for that alread implies this anyway. I somewhat disagree. `CallDescription` is one of the interfaces that newcomers come by rather fast, and a descriptive name would be a nice piece of guidance. I am not sure what can be gained by turning this to an overload. > That being said, digging out a callexpr from a CallEvent and calling the > callexpr overload seems to be too artifical to me to worry about. Well, a tiny bit more is happening than that with the argument count -- what do you mean with this statement exactly? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119004/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119004 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
