On 9/11/24 10:53 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024, Marek Polacek wrote:
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. */
... so the patch LGTM, except I'd prefer to not have this comment
containing an embedded specific testcase. IMHO it's "understood" that
processing_template_decl needs to be set when substituting using an
incomplete set of arguments since in that case the result must be
templated.
... and the comment might make this instance of the pattern seem more
like an exceptional case rather than a general rule, which paradoxically
could make the code seem more complex than it is at first glance.
Makes sense to me.
Jason
