ChuanqiXu9 wrote: > I'm still really hesitant about this direction. > > One starting concern: what happens if someone adds an overload, or other > interesting name resolution to the module? The downstream caller hasn't > textually changed, but it should be rebuilt because it should be calling a > different overload candidate now? (& even if we then track every function > with the same name, there's other cases - like adding an implicit conversion > operator, operator overload, etc, that might complicate things)
Oh, nice catch. It is a problem for the used file based solution if we add the overload to a separate unused files. While the hash based solution can handle the overloads case, it'll be a problem if we add an implicit conversion we didn't use before. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72956 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
