Re: [PATCH] c++: satisfaction and ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT [PR105644]

2023-04-05 Thread Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 4/3/23 10:49, Patrick Palka wrote: > > This testcase demonstrates we can legitimately enter satisfaction with > > an ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT argument, which is problematic because we can't > > store such arguments in the satisfaction cache (or any other

Re: [PATCH] c++: satisfaction and ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT [PR105644]

2023-04-03 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 4/3/23 10:49, Patrick Palka wrote: This testcase demonstrates we can legitimately enter satisfaction with an ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT argument, which is problematic because we can't store such arguments in the satisfaction cache (or any other hash table). Since this appears to be possible only

[PATCH] c++: satisfaction and ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT [PR105644]

2023-04-03 Thread Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches
This testcase demonstrates we can legitimately enter satisfaction with an ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT argument, which is problematic because we can't store such arguments in the satisfaction cache (or any other hash table). Since this appears to be possible only during constrained auto deduction for a