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. ---------------- cor3ntin wrote: > 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. I am a bit confused by GCC https://godbolt.org/z/TTrP81jjx 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
