Files
RedBear-OS/local/recipes/dev/libclc/source/clang/test/SemaTemplate/subst-into-subst.cpp
T
vasilito cb424d7448 build: static patch-sanity linter (shift-left the malformed-patch class)
verify-patch-sanity.py validates every active recipe .patch has internally-
consistent hunk line counts — catching the 'malformed patch at line N' failure
at commit/CI/preflight time instead of hours into a cook. This cycle hit that
class three times (qtwaylandscanner, sddm, xwayland), each only discovered when
cookbook tried to apply the patch.

Running it across the repo found 29 latent malformed patches (validated against
GNU patch: e.g. relibc/P3-sysv-ipc reproduces 'malformed patch at line 22').
They were harmless only because they sit in vendored recipes (baked, not re-
applied) — but would fail on any version-bump re-derivation. --fix recounts the
hunk headers (body untouched) and repaired all 29.

Wired into build-preflight.sh (Phase 1.0D) and redbear-ci.yml, with a unit test
(test-patch-sanity.sh). Skips archived/legacy trees and unvalidatable formats
(empty placeholders, bare-@@ git hunks).
2026-08-01 05:13:02 +03:00

35 lines
1.3 KiB
C++

// 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}}
}