https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113272
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Ok, this behavior is interesting:
```
int g = 0;
int g1 = 0;
template <auto *a>
struct A {
void f() { g++; }
};
template < const auto * a>
struct A<a>{
void f(){ g1++; }
};
int x = 0;
const int x1 = 0;
int main()
{
{
int t = 0;
A<&x> a;
t++;
a.f();
if (g != t)
return 1;
}
int t = 0;
if (0){
A<(const int *)&x> a1;
a1.f();
t++;
if (g1 != t)
return 1;
}
{
A<&x1> a1;
a1.f();
t++;
if (g1 != t)
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
```
The above passes like expected but if we enable the case for `A<(const int
*)&x>`, we get a failure in that g is incremented and not g1.
Note MSVC has the same behavior for the above testcase. Though clang rejects it
with an error:
```
<source>:9:8: error: class template partial specialization is not more
specialized than the primary template [-Winvalid-partial-specialization]
9 | struct A<a>{
| ^
<source>:4:8: note: template is declared here
4 | struct A {
| ^
```
Which I find even more interesting ...
