On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 10:58:25AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 9/3/24 6:12 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk/14?
>
> The change to return bool seems like unrelated cleanup; please push that
> separately on trunk only.
Done.
> > + /* We can also have:
> > +
> > + template <template <typename T, typename T::type TT> typename X>
> > + void func() {}
> > + template <typename U, int I>
> > + struct Y {};
> > + void g() { func<Y>(); }
> > +
> > + where we are not in a template, but the type of PARM is T::type
> > + and dependent_type_p doesn't want to see a TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM
> > + outside a template. */
> > + ++processing_template_decl;
> > tree t = tsubst (TREE_TYPE (parm), outer_args, complain, in_decl);
> > + --processing_template_decl;
> > if (!uses_template_parms (t)
> > && !same_type_p (t, TREE_TYPE (arg)))
>
> This looks like the pattern Patrick just removed from type_unification_real
> for PR101463. Do we want to make the same change here?
Interesting. Sorry, this may be silly, but I'm not sure I can do that
here: find_template_parameters wants "the template parameters in scope"
but I don't think I have that here.
Marek
