ChuanqiXu accepted this revision.
ChuanqiXu added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM basically. Please wait for 1~2 weeks to land this in case there are other
comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaConcept.cpp:496-497
+
+ // Attn Reviewers: we need to do this for the function constraints for
+ // comparison of constraints to work, but do we also need to do it for
+ // CheckInstantiatedFunctionConstraints? That one is more difficult, but we
----------------
We need to edit the `Attn Reviewers` to `TODO` before landing. The content need
to be rewording too. Your English is much better than me. So no concrete
suggestion here : )
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaTemplate.cpp:4705
CheckConstraintSatisfaction(
- NamedConcept, {NamedConcept->getConstraintExpr()}, Converted,
+ NamedConcept, {NamedConcept->getConstraintExpr()}, MLTAL,
SourceRange(SS.isSet() ? SS.getBeginLoc() : ConceptNameInfo.getLoc(),
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > I would feel better if we could write:
> > ```
> > CheckConstraintSatisfaction(
> > NamedConcept, {NamedConcept->getConstraintExpr()}, {MLTAL},
> > SourceRange(SS.isSet() ? SS.getBeginLoc() :
> > ConceptNameInfo.getLoc(),
> > TemplateArgs->getRAngleLoc()),
> > Satisfaction)
> > ```
> >
> > But it looks unimplementable.
> I'm not sure I get the suggestion? Why would you want to put the
> `MultiLevelTemplateArgumentList` in curleys?
I just feel like the style is more cleaner. But I found the constructor might
not allow us to do so... So this one might not be a suggestion.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119544/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119544
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
