cor3ntin added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.arg/temp.arg.template/p3-2a.cpp:60-62 + // A naive individual might expect the following to all fail concept checking, + // but there does not seem to be any requirement to check these in the + // standard, and none of the other implementations do so either. ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > I agree that none of the other implementations seems to be checking > > constraints here, but I would have guessed that > > https://eel.is/c++draft/temp.arg.template#3 was what would trigger checking > > the constraints here (the `and for template template-parameters, each of > > their corresponding template-parameters matches, recursively.` bit, > > specifically). > > > > Usually the answer to "Am I misreading the standard or are these three > > implementations all wrong in the same way?" is "I misread the standard.", > > but I'd appreciate some confirmation here. :-) > >>Usually the answer to "Am I misreading the standard or are these three > >>implementations all wrong in the same way?" is "I misread the standard." > > This is typically _MY_ response to this as well, so I was hoping @rsmith or > @hubert.reinterpretcast could tell me the answer here (and perhaps help write > a Core issue if the implementations are all 'right'). I've spent the last hour trying to come up with scenarios where GCC does something interesting here, or where there would be a use for this here, but I have nothing. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D110641/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D110641 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
