On 2/2/24 15:57, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/2/24 14:41, Patrick Palka wrote:
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this
look OK for trunk?
-- >8 --
In r11-3261-gb28b621ac67bee we made tsubst_
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 2/2/24 14:41, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this
> > > look OK for trunk?
> > >
> > > -- >8 --
> > >
> > > In r11-3261-gb28b621ac67bee we made tsubst
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/2/24 14:41, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this
> > look OK for trunk?
> >
> > -- >8 --
> >
> > In r11-3261-gb28b621ac67bee we made tsubst_requires_expr never partially
> > substitute into a require
On 2/2/24 14:41, Patrick Palka wrote:
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this
look OK for trunk?
-- >8 --
In r11-3261-gb28b621ac67bee we made tsubst_requires_expr never partially
substitute into a requires-expression so as to avoid checking its
requirements out of order dur
On 2/2/24 14:41, Patrick Palka wrote:
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this
look OK for trunk?
OK.
-- >8 --
In r11-3261-gb28b621ac67bee we made tsubst_requires_expr never partially
substitute into a requires-expression so as to avoid checking its
requirements out of or
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this
look OK for trunk?
-- >8 --
In r11-3261-gb28b621ac67bee we made tsubst_requires_expr never partially
substitute into a requires-expression so as to avoid checking its
requirements out of order during e.g. generic lambda regeneration.
U
