sammccall added a comment. What's the rationale/motivation for this? I'd expect this to break a lot of subtle assumptions, because the invariant "nothing can be dependent without being instantiation-dependent" is a useful one.
It also doesn't seem correct from first principles. My mental model is: - dependence describes code where some properties are unknown because a template wasn't instantiated yet - we've generalized this to "some properties are unknown because we don't know what this piece of code is supposed to say" - we can never know the value at compile-time even in contexts where we should, so RecoveryExpr is value-dependent - we only know the type at compile-time if the RecoveryExpr's type is known and not itself dependent, so RecoveryExpr is usually value-dependent - the code may intend to refer to entities valid only in certain instantiations (consider `(void)f(T())` where f is an overloaded function). So RecoveryExpr is at least sometimes instantiation-dependent At best I think we could say that the expr is only instantiation-dependent if it occurs in a template scope - otherwise there's no template we might fail to instantiate. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83213/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83213 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
