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:
> cor3ntin wrote:
> > 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 
> Huh.... is this some level of the subsumes check that needs to happen?  
> Though you show that the 'same constraint name + more info' thing doesn't 
> work?  I'm very confused...
My current reading of the tea leaves (with no confidence whatsoever) is that 
the require clauses should match - aka be exactly the same.
And in the last case, maybe GCC has a bug where it fails to do the check if the 
template argument has no require clause whatsoever.
Maybe?


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

Reply via email to