================
@@ -4126,7 +4126,11 @@ static bool isTemplateArgumentTemplateParameter(const
TemplateArgument &Arg,
return false;
const NonTypeTemplateParmDecl *NTTP =
dyn_cast<NonTypeTemplateParmDecl>(DRE->getDecl());
- return NTTP && NTTP->getDepth() == Depth && NTTP->getIndex() == Index;
+ if (!NTTP || NTTP->getDepth() != Depth || NTTP->getIndex() != Index)
+ return false;
+ QualType ParamType = cast<NonTypeTemplateParmDecl>(Param)->getType();
+ QualType NTTPType = NTTP->getType();
+ return ParamType.getCanonicalType() == NTTPType.getCanonicalType();
----------------
keinflue wrote:
(Assuming my understanding is correct) `Param` is here supposed to be the
(non-type) template parameter of the primary template and `NTTP` the non-type
template parameter of the partial specialization, i.e. they are not the same
template parameter.
The intent is to test whether the template arguments/parameters of the primary
template and specialization are "identical" for the purpose of
https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4140/temp.class.spec#8.3 (which since has
been removed since from the standard because
https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4140/temp.class.spec#8.4 which was added
later covers it).
This is done only to give a more user-friendly error message in case the user
intended to declare a primary template instead of a specialization, the
relevant check for p8.4 is done elsewhere. So I think it is ok if the function
incorrectly returns `true`, but it must not return `false` incorrectly.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/152864
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
