On 1/31/24 16:03, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/31/24 12:12, Patrick Palka wrote:
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
trunk?
-- >8 --
Here during declaration matching we undesirably consider the two TT{42}
CTAD expres
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 1/31/24 12:12, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
> > > trunk?
> > >
> > > -- >8 --
> > >
> > > Here during declaration matching we und
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 1/31/24 12:12, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
> > trunk?
> >
> > -- >8 --
> >
> > Here during declaration matching we undesirably consider the two TT{42}
> > CTAD expressions to be n
On 1/31/24 12:12, Patrick Palka wrote:
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
trunk?
-- >8 --
Here during declaration matching we undesirably consider the two TT{42}
CTAD expressions to be non-equivalent ultimately because for CTAD
placeholder equivalence we co
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
trunk?
-- >8 --
Here during declaration matching we undesirably consider the two TT{42}
CTAD expressions to be non-equivalent ultimately because for CTAD
placeholder equivalence we compare the TEMPLATE_DECLs (which uses
poin
