On Wed, 2024-07-17 at 15:48 -0400, Patrick Palka wrote: > > I guess you mean B<int&> here? >
Yes. Apologies for my mistake. > Ah, that's because the substitution failure in the first example > occurs > during constraint _normalization_, and in second example it occurs > during atomic constraint _satisfaction_. Substitution failure during > constraint normalization is indeed a hard error according to > https://eel.is/c++draft/temp.constr.normal#1.4.sentence-2 as you > cited. > But substitution failure during satisfaction just causes the current > atomic constraint to silently evaluate to false. Wow, thanks for your explanation! > A patch using TI_PARTIAL_INFO would be much appreciated :) Sure. In the meantime, can we finalise the following patch that complements the next patch? https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/657702.html
