[PATCH] D105733: [OpaquePtr] Require matching signature in getCalledFunction()

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

dexonsmith added a comment.

@nikic, I think we're mostly on the same page about the current state; I agree with your point that a new name could be safer; IMO the existing name is the right one for the documented behaviour (the 500+ callers carve out a desire path <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path>), but there are ways to stage changes like that to minimize risk.

Regardless of how things are staged / named / etc., any thoughts on the right thing to do? IOW, it seems to me like the proposed audit would reduce differences between `--force-opaque-pointers` on vs. off; do you agree? enough of a reduction that it's worth doing the audit?


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D105733/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D105733