rsmith added inline comments. ================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:7659 @@ +7658,3 @@ + Diag(D.getDeclSpec().getConceptSpecLoc(), + diag::err_concept_specified_specialization) << 1; + } ---------------- hubert.reinterpretcast wrote: > nwilson wrote: > > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote: > > > I don't think the declaration should still be marked as a concept in this > > > case. > > Hmm, Richard - did you have any thoughts about this? IIRC, we might be okay > > here by only looking at the concept flag of the primary template. > A consideration: > When processing the body associated with the specialization, should the > requirements for a function concept body be checked? I think the `concept` flag logically belongs on the template declaration rather than on the templated declaration; moving it there would make this question irrelevant =)
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13357 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
