Podchishchaeva, Mariya dcb8911316 [clang] Fix specialization of non-templated member classes of class templates
Explicit specialization doesn't increase depth of template parameters,
so need to be careful when gathering template parameters for
instantiation.
For the case:
```
template<typename T>
struct X {
  struct impl;
};

template <>
struct X<int>::impl {
    template<int ct>
    int f() { return ct; };
};
```
instantiation of `f` used to crash because type template parameter
`int` of explicit specialization was taken into account, but non-type
template parameter `ct` had zero depth and index so wrong parameter
ended up inside of a wrong handler.

Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/61159

Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, shafik

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D155705
2023-07-24 09:36:58 -07:00

40 lines
811 B
C++

// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++20 %s
// expected-no-diagnostics
namespace GH61159 {
template <typename T> struct X {
struct I;
};
template <> struct X<int>::I {
template <int ct> constexpr int f() { return ct; };
int data = 3;
};
template <typename T> struct X<T>::I {
template <T ct> constexpr T f() { return ct + 1; };
T data = 7;
};
static_assert(X<int>::I{}.f<17>() == 17);
static_assert(X<int>::I{}.data == 3);
static_assert(X<short>::I{}.data == 7);
static_assert(X<short>::I{}.f<18>() == 19);
template <typename T> struct Y {
struct I;
};
template <> struct Y<int> {
struct I {
template <int ct> constexpr int f() { return ct; };
int data = 3;
};
};
static_assert(Y<int>::I{}.f<17>() == 17);
static_assert(Y<int>::I{}.data == 3);
} // namespace GH61159