[C++20] Implement P2113R0: Changes to the Partial Ordering of Constrained Functions
This implementation matches GCC behavior in that [[ https://eel.is/c++draft/temp.func.order#6.2.1 | temp.func.order p6.2.1 ]] is not implemented [1]. I reached out to the GCC author to confirm that some changes elsewhere to overload resolution are probably needed, but no solution has been developed sufficiently [3].
Most of the wordings are implemented straightforwardly. However,
for [[ https://eel.is/c++draft/temp.func.order#6.2.2 | temp.func.order p6.2.2 ]] "... or if the function parameters that positionally correspond between the two templates are not of the same type", the "same type" is not very clear ([2] is a bug related to this). Here is a quick example
```
template <C T, C U> int f(T, U);
template <typename T, C U> int f(U, T);
int x = f(0, 0);
```
Is the `U` and `T` from different `f`s the "same type"? The answer is NO even though both `U` and `T` are deduced to be `int` in this case. The reason is that `U` and `T` are dependent types, according to [[ https://eel.is/c++draft/temp.over.link#3 | temp.over.link p3 ]], they can not be the "same type".
To check if two function parameters are the "same type":
* For //function template//: compare the function parameter canonical types and return type between two function templates.
* For //class template/partial specialization//: by [[ https://eel.is/c++draft/temp.spec.partial.order#1.2 | temp.spec.partial.order p1.2 ]], compare the injected template arguments between two templates using hashing(TemplateArgument::Profile) is enough.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=
57b4daf8dc4ed7b669cc70638866ddb00f5b7746
[2] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/49308
[3] https://lists.isocpp.org/core/2020/06/index.php#msg9392
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54039
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/49308 (PR49964)
Reviewed By: royjacobson, #clang-language-wg, mizvekov
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128750