On 11/18/21 14:49, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/17/21 14:52, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/11/21 20:25, Patrick Palka wrote:
In the testcase below satisfaction misbehaves for f and g ultimately
because find_templ
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/17/21 14:52, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/11/21 20:25, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > In the testcase below satisfaction misbehaves for f and g ultimately
> > > > because find_template_parameters
On 11/17/21 14:52, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/11/21 20:25, Patrick Palka wrote:
In the testcase below satisfaction misbehaves for f and g ultimately
because find_template_parameters fails to notice that the constraint
'val.x' depends on the template pa
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/11/21 20:25, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > In the testcase below satisfaction misbehaves for f and g ultimately
> > because find_template_parameters fails to notice that the constraint
> > 'val.x' depends on the template parameters of the class template
On 11/11/21 20:25, Patrick Palka wrote:
In the testcase below satisfaction misbehaves for f and g ultimately
because find_template_parameters fails to notice that the constraint
'val.x' depends on the template parameters of the class template.
In contrast, satisfaction works just fine for h.
The
In the testcase below satisfaction misbehaves for f and g ultimately
because find_template_parameters fails to notice that the constraint
'val.x' depends on the template parameters of the class template.
In contrast, satisfaction works just fine for h.
The problem seems to come down to a differenc
