================
@@ -972,8 +972,30 @@ static const Expr
*SubstituteConstraintExpressionWithoutSatisfaction(
// equivalence.
LocalInstantiationScope ScopeForParameters(S);
if (auto *FD = DeclInfo.getDecl()->getAsFunction())
- for (auto *PVD : FD->parameters())
- ScopeForParameters.InstantiatedLocal(PVD, PVD);
+ for (auto *PVD : FD->parameters()) {
+ if (!PVD->isParameterPack()) {
+ ScopeForParameters.InstantiatedLocal(PVD, PVD);
+ continue;
+ }
+ // This is hacky: we're mapping the parameter pack to a size-of-1
argument
+ // to avoid building SubstTemplateTypeParmPackTypes for
+ // PackExpansionTypes. The SubstTemplateTypeParmPackType node would
+ // otherwise reference the AssociatedDecl of the template arguments,
which
+ // is, in this case, the template declaration.
+ //
+ // However, as we're also calculating the redeclarations of the template,
+ // the canonical declarations thereof are actually themselves at the
+ // moment. So if we didn't expand these packs, we would end up with an
+ // incorrect profile difference because we will be profiling the
+ // canonical types!
+ //
+ // FIXME: Improve the "no-transform" machinery in FindInstantiatedDecl so
+ // that we can eliminate the Scope in the cases where the declarations
are
+ // not necessarily instantiated. It would also benefit the noexcept
+ // specifier comparison.
----------------
cor3ntin wrote:
I think both approach are equally... in search of a better 3rd approach :D
I like the Decl approach because it doesn't mess too much with substitution at
all, the only thing that should be affected is profiling. So I am somewhat more
confident about its correctness, if that makes sense.
Any preference @mizvekov ?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102131
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
