cor3ntin added a comment. Given that we still need to check for substitution errors in untaken branches, this look reasonable (especially as i think you are right that alternative approaches are likely to be more complex) however i think it does require a comment, and I'd like @erichkeane to have the final say.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaConcept.cpp:220-224 + bool IsRHSSatisfied = Satisfaction.IsSatisfied; + if (BO.isOr() && IsRHSSatisfied) + Satisfaction.Details.erase(EffectiveDetailEnd, + Satisfaction.Details.end()); + ---------------- This really needs a comment explaining that we are pruning details that do not matter for satisfaction, and a FIXME along the line of what Erich suggested. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D157526/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D157526 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
