erichkeane wrote: > I don't think this is the right approach. I stepped though the example and > the reason we reject is because: > > * We substitute a dependent `AutoType` in for the types of the template > parameters when they are initially built. > > * We call `getMoreSpecialized` determine whether the partial > specialization is more specialized than the primary. > > * We determine that neither template is at least as specialized as the > other via `isAtLeastAsSpecializedAs`. > > * We call `TemplateParameterListsAreEqual` per [[temp.func.order] > p6.2.2](http://eel.is/c++draft/temp.func.order#6.2.2) to check for template > parameter equivalence, and compare the two template parameters by calling > `MatchTemplateParameterKind`. > > * `MatchTemplateParameterKind` calls `ASTContext::getUnconstrainedType` > to get the unconstrained type of the template parameters per > [[temp.over.link] p6 sentence > 2](http://eel.is/c++draft/temp.over.link#6.sentence-2). For class templates > template parameter, it returns the type unchanged (a _**dependent**_ > `AutoType`). For the class template partial specializations template > parameter, it returns an unconstrained `AutoType` _**that isn't dependent**_. > > * We compare the adjusted types and determine they aren't equal, so we > consider neither template to be more specialized than the other. > > > So, I think the correct fix is to propagate dependence in > `ASTContext::getUnconstrainedType`. I have a branch that implements this > [here](https://github.com/sdkrystian/llvm-project/tree/partial-spec-dependent-auto). > WDYT @erichkeane @cor3ntin @zyn0217?
Yeah, that seems incredibly reasonable and a much lower touch here with fewer concerns about the side-effects that we got here. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91842 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
