================
@@ -1002,8 +1005,13 @@ ExprResult ConstraintSatisfactionChecker::EvaluateSlow(
const_cast<NamedDecl *>(Template), Constraint.getSourceRange());
TemplateArgumentListInfo OutArgs(Ori->LAngleLoc, Ori->RAngleLoc);
- if (S.SubstTemplateArguments(Ori->arguments(), *SubstitutedArgs, OutArgs) ||
- Trap.hasErrorOccurred()) {
+
+ if (ConceptId == TopLevelConceptId) {
----------------
mizvekov wrote:
It's that I don't see that we impose on `ConceptReference` any of the
constraints that would allow comparing them like this with a well defined
meaning. Ie if I had seen two declarations compared instead, I would know
exactly what it means and where that's appropriate. But not so for
ConceptReference.
I think this would be an easy change, and you could just compare
ConceptSpecializationDecls instead?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/207966
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
