| // RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++2a -verify %s |
| |
| // When forming and checking satisfaction of atomic constraints, we will |
| // substitute still-dependent template arguments into an expression, and later |
| // substitute into the result. This creates some unique situations; check that |
| // they work. |
| |
| namespace SubstIntoResolvedTypeTemplateArg { |
| template<int, class> struct X {}; |
| |
| template<class T> concept A = true; |
| template<class T> concept B = sizeof(T) != 0; |
| template<class T> concept C = B<X<1, T>>; |
| |
| int f(A auto); // expected-note {{candidate}} |
| int f(C auto); // expected-note {{candidate}} |
| int k1 = f(0); // expected-error {{ambiguous}} |
| |
| template<class T> concept D = A<T> && B<X<1, T>>; |
| int f(D auto); |
| int k2 = f(0); // ok |
| |
| // The atomic constraint formed from B<X<(int)'\1', T>> is identical to the |
| // one formed from C, even though the template arguments are written as |
| // different expressions; the "equivalent" rules are used rather than the |
| // "identical" rules when matching template arguments in concept-ids. |
| template<class T> concept E = A<T> && B<X<(int)'\1', T>>; |
| int g(C auto); |
| int g(E auto); // expected-note {{candidate}} |
| int k3 = g(0); |
| |
| int g(D auto); // expected-note {{candidate}} |
| int k4 = g(0); // expected-error {{ambiguous}} |
| } |