rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaTemplateInstantiate.cpp:138-144
+ bool SkipForSpecialization,
+ bool ForConstraintInstantiation) {
if (!ClassTemplSpec->isClassScopeExplicitSpecialization()) {
// We're done when we hit an explicit specialization.
if (ClassTemplSpec->getSpecializationKind() == TSK_ExplicitSpecialization
&&
- !isa<ClassTemplatePartialSpecializationDecl>(ClassTemplSpec))
+ !isa<ClassTemplatePartialSpecializationDecl>(ClassTemplSpec) &&
+ !ForConstraintInstantiation)
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> It seems to me that a namespace-scope explicit specialization shouldn't pick
> up template arguments, even during constraint checking:
>
> ```
> template<typename T> struct A {};
> template<> struct A<int> {
> template<typename U> void f() requires U::value;
> };
> ```
> Constraint checking for `A<X>::f<Y>` should produce a single level of
> template arguments, `<Y>`, not two layers `<X>, <Y>`, because `U` in
> `U::value` is a depth-0 index-0 parameter.
Complete testcase:
```
struct X {}; struct Y { static constexpr bool value = true; };
template<typename T> struct A {};
template<> struct A<X> {
template<typename U> void f() requires U::value;
};
void g(A<X> a) { a.f<Y>(); }
```
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149264/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149264
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
