================
@@ -972,8 +972,15 @@ static const Expr
*SubstituteConstraintExpressionWithoutSatisfaction(
// equivalence.
LocalInstantiationScope ScopeForParameters(S);
if (auto *FD = DeclInfo.getDecl()->getAsFunction())
- for (auto *PVD : FD->parameters())
- ScopeForParameters.InstantiatedLocal(PVD, PVD);
+ for (auto *PVD : FD->parameters()) {
+ if (!PVD->isParameterPack()) {
+ ScopeForParameters.InstantiatedLocal(PVD, PVD);
+ continue;
+ }
+ // Parameter packs should expand to a size-of-1 argument.
+ ScopeForParameters.MakeInstantiatedLocalArgPack(PVD);
+ ScopeForParameters.InstantiatedLocalPackArg(PVD, PVD);
+ }
----------------
mizvekov wrote:
Also, this new comment should be clearer here.
We are trying to create a no-transformation scope, so in the end there is no
actual pack expansion going on here: We are expanding an unexpanded pack into
an expansion of one unexpanded pack, so we are back where we started and
nothing was expanded. So this looks like a clever hack which avoided creating
the SubstTemplateTypeParmPackType through a loophole.
Since concepts make this a valid use case, we could explore improving this
abstraction, for example creating some sort of NonInstantiation scope where you
just have to register which declarations are in scope, but shouldn't transform
them.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102131
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
