| // 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}} | 
 | } |