ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D126907#3645198 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126907#3645198>, @erichkeane wrote:
> In D126907#3644127 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126907#3644127>, @ChuanqiXu > wrote: > >> In D126907#3642530 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126907#3642530>, @erichkeane >> wrote: >> >>> This version passes check-runtimes, so libc++ is fine, and it passes >>> everything I have available. @ChuanqiXu : Would you be able to do 1 more >>> run over this to make sure it won't break something? Thanks in advance >>> either way! >> >> I've tested some our internal workloads and all of them looks fine. But it >> is expected since we don't use concept heavily. I had tried to run libcxx >> before but it looks like my previous config is wrong... > > Ok, thanks! I DID test the libcxx test suite on the above, I figured it out > through check-runtimes. If you were able to take a quick look at the diff > and make sure I'm not doing anything horrible, it would be appreciated. Yeah, things looks good to me basically. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaTemplateInstantiate.cpp:963-964 + Entity(Entity), + EvaluatingAConstraint(EvaluatingConstraint || + !SemaRef.CurContext->isDependentContext()) {} ---------------- I would like to see this in call site and a comment to tell us that we don't want to evaluate constraints in dependent context. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126907/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126907 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
