rjmccall wrote: > I cannot figure out a test case for `TemplateArgument::Expression`. I wonder > whether it applies to `X<&s.s> x5;` (address of static member), which Clang > doesn't support.
It's primarily used as a dependent template argument. I'm not sure off-hand that it's *never* canonical, though, given all the ways the language has extended template arguments in the last decade. > After the change, does it seem more feasible to ignore template parameters? Hmm. You're right that considering the type of a non-type template argument would be enough to give the right visibility to my example. It would not be enough if the template was used as a template template argument, though. I suspect the code just needs to be restructured a bit to get the behavior I'm asking for, but I'll need to think about it. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72092 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
