On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Andrew Sutton
<andrew.n.sut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just tried building a fresh pull of cmcstl2, and I'm not seeing any
> errors as a result of not handling those missing codes in
> tsubst_constraint. At one point, I think it was not possible to get
> those other constraints in this context because they were nested in a
> parm_constr. But that seems obviously untrue now. But still... that
> gcc_unreachable isn't being triggered by any code in cmcstl.
The only one that was triggered by cmcstl was EXPR_CONSTR, and then
only for a member; if you comment out the EXPR_CONSTR case that I
added to tsubst_constraint, this test will ICE.
struct B
{
template <class T> void f(T t)
requires requires (T tt) { tt; }
{ }
};
int main()
{
B().f(42);
}
Jason
