guments instead
would
be better here. I'll try to write a patch for this today.
Like so, tested so far with RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=*concepts*" and also
verified we no longer ICE with the unreduced testcase in the PR. Does
the following look OK to commit after a full bootstrap and reg
t; substituted form printed since it would let us to see through
> > > > > > complicated dependent type aliases, but it seems we don't strip type
> > > > > > aliases when pretty printing a parameter and its type with '%q#D'
> > > > > > anyway. And I can&
e so, tested so far with RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=*concepts*" and also
verified we no longer ICE with the unreduced testcase in the PR. Does
the following look OK to commit after a full bootstrap and regtest?
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: Parameter pack in requires parameter list [
rinted since it would let us to see through
> > > > complicated dependent type aliases, but it seems we don't strip type
> > > > aliases when pretty printing a parameter and its type with '%q#D'
> > > > anyway. And I can't think of any other po
r possible advantage of printing
> > > the substituted form.
> > >
> > > So IMHO printing the dependent form and template arguments instead would
> > > be better here. I'll try to write a patch for this today.
> >
> > Like so, te
ase in the PR. Does
the following look OK to commit after a full bootstrap and regtest?
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: Parameter pack in requires parameter list [PR94808]
When printing the substituted parameter list of a requires-expression as
part of the "in requirements with ..." cont
tead would
> be better here. I'll try to write a patch for this today.
Like so, tested so far with RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=*concepts*" and also
verified we no longer ICE with the unreduced testcase in the PR. Does
the following look OK to commit after a full bootstrap and re
On Tue, 28 Apr 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 4/28/20 9:48 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > When printing the substituted parameter list of a requires-expression as
> > part of the "in requirements with ..." context line during concepts
> > diagnostics, we weren't considering that substitution into a
On 4/28/20 9:48 AM, Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches wrote:
When printing the substituted parameter list of a requires-expression as
part of the "in requirements with ..." context line during concepts
diagnostics, we weren't considering that substitution into a parameter
pack can yield zero or multi
On 4/28/20 9:48 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
When printing the substituted parameter list of a requires-expression as
part of the "in requirements with ..." context line during concepts
diagnostics, we weren't considering that substitution into a parameter
pack can yield zero or multiple parameters.
When printing the substituted parameter list of a requires-expression as
part of the "in requirements with ..." context line during concepts
diagnostics, we weren't considering that substitution into a parameter
pack can yield zero or multiple parameters.
Since this patch affects only concepts dia
11 matches
Mail list logo
