On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:37 PM Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Jan 27, 2019, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >> + ??? How do we > >> + tell apart a partial from a full explicit specialization in a > >> + non-template context? */ > > > We don't need to tell them apart here, the caller checks if there are > > any dependent template arguments. > > The single caller does, indeed, but the function does not make that a > requirement, so others might call it and fail to check it. Should that > test be moved here too?
Hmm, I wouldn't expect that from a function named "instantiates_primary_template_p". Perhaps another function that calls instantiates_primary_template_p and then checks for dependent innermost template args? I'm not sure what to call that function, perhaps decl_has_dependent_primary_targs? > Anyhow, the question was really about the fact that the non-template > context has no template argument depth for us to compare with. When I > wrote that comment, I was returning true for !ctinfo, unconditionally, > reasoning that if NODE's context is not a template, then NODE must > specialize some a primary template. Right. > But if we want partial but not full > explicit specializations, then just having a deeper (or nonzero) > template argument depth is not enough, is it? See above. Though we're not necessarily dealing with explicit specializations at all here, what we have is a decl produced from a template and some args, which might or might not be specialized. > >> + tree ctxt; > >> + if (!DECL_P (node)) > >> + ctxt = TYPE_CONTEXT (node); > >> + else > >> + ctxt = DECL_CONTEXT (node); > > > We know tmpl is a decl, so we can unconditionally take its DECL_CONTEXT. > > Does it hurt too much to keep it more general, so that it can deal with > template class types too? A class template also comes from a TEMPLATE_DECL; either way, tmpl is a TEMPLATE_DECL. Note that I'm talking about the "tmpl" variable, not "node". Jason
