Hi,
On 08/18/2014 09:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/15/2014 03:37 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 08/15/2014 09:22 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/15/2014 03:16 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ bool in_function = (TREE_TYPE (tparms)
+ && DECL_FUNCTION_TEMPLATE_P (TREE_TYPE (tparms)));
Huh? There's no such thing as a template parameter of function type.
Oh, I see, you're using that TREE_TYPE of the parameter vec points to
the primary template for those template parms.
But I don't see any rationale in the standard for distinguishing
between deduction for a function template vs. another kind of template
for the DR 1584 change.
I understand... It would be nice to also have a testcase for the class
template counterpart of the snippet in DR 1584, where it makes a real
difference. Then figuring out a complete patch not causing regressions
will be easier.
Paolo.