xazax.hun added a comment. In D75163#1902921 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75163#1902921>, @balazske wrote:
> In D75163#1902816 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75163#1902816>, @xazax.hun wrote: > > > If we were to refactor this check I wonder if it would make sense to port > > `evalCall` to `postCall`, so the analyzer engine will conjure the symbol > > for us. > > I wonder what @NoQ thinks about the pros and cons of the approaches. > > > Once I wanted to remove `evalCall` but it was no success: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D69662 Sounds fair. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75163/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75163 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
