erichkeane added a comment. In D131858#3763878 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858#3763878>, @mizvekov wrote:
> In D131858#3763851 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858#3763851>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> Just did a quick scroll through this (as it is quite large!), but the >> general idea seems like a fine one to me. I AM concerned about how it >> interacts with the deferred concepts instantiation that I've been working on >> (https://reviews.llvm.org/D126907), particularly around the MLTAL work. > > I think I did rebase it on top of that at one point, thought it was short > lived as it was reverted if I am not mistaken. > But I can certainly do it again if you merge yours first, and I am available > any time to help if it happens the other way around. > > But the gist of the change is simple, you will simply have to pass in the > templated declaration for every level that you push into the MLTAL. > I think that should be the only change that affects you, besides possibly > churn in AST tests if you plan to have any. Part of the problem is that the concepts instantiation needs to reform the MLTAL AFTER the fact using `Sema::getTemplateInstantiationArgs` and `addInstantiatedParametersToScope`. BUT I don't se the corresponding changes on quick look here. As far as which goes first, I obviously have my preference, since I'm about 10 months into that patch now :/ I'm still working through a couple of issues though. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
