================
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++23 -verify %s
+
+namespace t1 {
+template<bool> struct enable_if { typedef void type; };
+template <class T> class Foo {};
+template <class X> constexpr bool check() { return true; }
+template <class X, class Enable = void> struct Bar {};
+
+template<class X> void func(Bar<X, typename enable_if<check<X>()>::type>) {}
+// expected-note@-1 {{candidate function}}
+
+template<class T> void func(Bar<Foo<T>>) {}
+// expected-note@-1 {{candidate function}}
+
+void g() {
+ func(Bar<Foo<int>>()); // expected-error {{call to 'func' is ambiguous}}
----------------
mizvekov wrote:
> can you add a similar tests where the overload are constrained (both with
> subsumption, and with either one having a constraint nit satisfied)
Subsumption is not checked on deduction, that's only used later during overload
resolution, which we are not changing, so I am not sure that test would be
relevant to this change.
Relatedly, in a callback to another discussion with @zygoloid , we currently
check if deduction would produce arguments which would not satisfy the
constraints, but according to the specification this should not apply to
partial ordering, which we fail to do so before this patch, and this patch
introduces another case where we fail to follow the rules.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/100692
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
