rsmith added a comment. In D71920#1870195 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71920#1870195>, @sammccall wrote:
> If you'd like to have `concept::Requirement` use a similar bitfield, I'd just > like to confirm my understanding of the current code before refactoring it: > > - there's just one `Dependent` bit (along with `UnexpandedPack`) - > instantiation-dependence isn't relevant? Correct; requirements are weird in this regard because substitution failure affects their value rather than their validity, so there's no difference between "refers to template parameter / substitution can fail" and "value depends on template parameters" > - RequiresExpr is only instantiation-dependent if value-dependent (unlike > other exprs) I don't think that's quite correct: a RequiresExpr should also be instantiation-dependent if it has instantiation-dependent parameters. Other than that case, it's both value-dependent and instantiation-dependent if it has dependent requirements and neither otherwise, so yes, the two flags are the same. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71920/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71920 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
