ychen added a comment. In D128745#3727715 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745#3727715>, @ychen wrote:
> In D128745#3727697 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745#3727697>, @abrachet > wrote: > >> This is breaking us. >> >> template <typename T, typename... Ts> struct S; // #1 >> >> template <typename T> struct S<T> {}; // #2 >> >> The following compiled before but is now broken, (we use >> `-fclang-abi-compat=13.0`). We get a warning from >> `-Winvalid-partial-specialization` >> >> This change _does_ make https://eel.is/c++draft/temp.func.order#example-5 >> work, ie for function overload resolution but regresses the type deduction >> example above. >> >> There seem to be examples in the standard that suggest #2 is more >> specialized. @mcgrathr found >> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1432 and >> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1395 among >> others. WDYT? > > I tried your test case but was unable to reproduce the issue. Is this the > complete test case? I'm asking because the provided test case does not > involve deduction. Or do you mean the duction for partial ordering, then I did a simple `S<int> a` which seems fine? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
