types.
We previously did not treat a function type as dependent if it had a
parameter pack with a non-dependent type -- such a function type depends
on the arity of the pack so is dependent even though none of the
parameter types is dependent. In order to properly handle this, we now
treat pack expansion types as always being dependent types (depending on
at least the pack arity), and always canonically being pack expansion
types, even in the unusual case when the pattern is not a dependent
type. This does mean that we can have canonical types that are pack
expansions that contain no unexpanded packs, which is unfortunate but
not inaccurate.
We also previously did not treat a typedef type as
instantiation-dependent if its canonical type was not
instantiation-dependent. That's wrong because instantiation-dependence
is a property of the type sugar, not of the type; an
instantiation-dependent type can have a non-instantiation-dependent
canonical type.
Richard Smith