https://github.com/NagyDonat commented:
Thanks for updating the commit! I reviewed the tests and added some minor suggestions in the implementation. Among my earlier suggestions [the visibility of VisitSymbol](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/152751/files#r2301055454) and the [complex code duplication question](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/152751/files#r2301561854) are still relevant. Moreover I thought about the approach that you currently emphasize "owning" in every name and comment where you speak about smart pointers. As this is not a distinguishing feature of these functions (you never interact with non-owning smart pointers) and these function names tend to be very long, I think it would be better to omit "owning" from these names. It is enough to mention the exclusion of `weak_ptr` in a single comment (next to the function that recognizes the names of the smart pointer classes). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/152751 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
