jcsxky wrote: > I don't think this is the right approach. I stepped though the example and > the reason we reject is because: > > * We substitute a dependent `AutoType` in for the types of the template > parameters when they are initially built. > * We call `getMoreSpecialized` determine whether the partial specialization > is more specialized than the primary. > * We determine that neither template is at least as specialized as the other > via `isAtLeastAsSpecializedAs`. > * We call `TemplateParameterListsAreEqual` per [[temp.func.order] > p6.2.2](http://eel.is/c++draft/temp.func.order#6.2.2) to check for template > parameter equivalence, and compare the two template parameters by calling > `MatchTemplateParameterKind`. > * `MatchTemplateParameterKind` calls `ASTContext::getUnconstrainedType` to > get the unconstrained type of the template parameters per [[temp.over.link] > p6 sentence 2](http://eel.is/c++draft/temp.over.link#6.sentence-2). For the > class templates template parameter, it returns the type unchanged (a > _**dependent**_ `AutoType`). For the class template partial specializations > template parameter, it returns an unconstrained `AutoType` _**that isn't > dependent**_. > * We compare the adjusted types and determine they aren't equal, so we > consider neither template to be more specialized than the other. > > So, I think the correct fix is to propagate dependence in > `ASTContext::getUnconstrainedType`. I have a branch that implements this > [here](https://github.com/sdkrystian/llvm-project/tree/partial-spec-dependent-auto). > WDYT @erichkeane @cor3ntin @zyn0217?
This is really a perfect approach and it has addressed the underlying issue. And thanks for your explaination! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91842 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
