benlangmuir added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34512#856301, @xazax.hun wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34512#856184, @dcoughlin wrote: > > > In either case, the important scenario I think we should support is > > choosing at a call site to a C function the most likely definition of the > > called function, based on number and type of parameters, from multiple > > possible definitions in other translation units. If the API is rich enough > > to support this then I think that is a good indication it will be useful > > for other scenarios as well. > > > Note that the lookup is already based on USR which is similar to mangled > names in a sense that it contains information about the function parameters. > So the only way to get multiple candidates from the lookup is having multiple > function definitions with the same signature. I just want to clarify that C function USRs do not contain type information, although C++ USRs do. https://reviews.llvm.org/D34512 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
