ychen added a comment. In D128750#3627085 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128750#3627085>, @royjacobson wrote:
> Thanks for working on this! I like the approach, but two comments: Thanks for the review. > I would like more tests for the different forms of template argument > deduction. Some suggestions for things to test: template template arguments, > 'auto' in abbreviated function templates, argument packs, non-type template > parameters. We should at least test that we find the more constrained > function when the parameters are equal. Sure, will do. > I'm also a bit concerned that we're deviating from the standard here w.r.t. > to the 'reordering' checks for reversed candidates. I support this - I think > your version makes more sense than what the standard says to do here - but if > someone could check with the committee (I don't have reflector access myself) > that we're not breaking some important use case by doing it this way, I think > it's a good idea. Yeah, I found it kinda hard to implement the `reordering` aspect efficiently. My understanding of the `reordering` aspect is for finding an intuitive order of template parameters that makes sense for the following constraints tie breaker. Hi @hubert.reinterpretcast, could you please shed some light on the intended implementation for https://eel.is/c++draft/temp.func.order#6.2.1.2? I'm a little hesitant to use an exhaustive approach to find the template parameter order for constraints comparison. Does using deducing order sound reason to you? Thanks. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128750/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128750 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
