From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 143EE3858CDA; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 08:05:27 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 143EE3858CDA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1698048327;
	bh=EDPYRkKuNl3G6SdaPXllcEXSWN5Kwbq+8S89uXPuh5s=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=pkS7TzAQLlpiQdRyMkD9dbaud3if2hGgonqPJuK9Nk+SPjsmfVp5FSR8awpQZfljA
	 HpaoC9QDKq+DGviPxephUyzz3O4hQbX07KOau6y7E/N47BpJkr6oTcLUQ66vO+QAt6
	 GlryX2izNTeS0ZSAAFe2bj1UdhxY75Y0s975Ss9s=
From: "stsp at users dot sourceforge.net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/111923] default argument is not treated as a complete-class
 context of a class
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 08:05:26 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: stsp at users dot sourceforge.net
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111923-4-WA0PzH7rSH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111923-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111923-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111923

--- Comment #7 from Stas Sergeev <stsp at users dot sourceforge.net> ---
Also I verified your assumption in
comment #5 by this code:

struct A {
    struct dummy {
        static constexpr const int foo(const int off =3D offsetof(A, a)) { =
return
off; }
        static constexpr const int operator()() { return foo(); }
    };
    static constexpr const int (*off_p)() =3D &dummy::operator();

    int t[off_p()];
    char a;
};

It says:

error: size of array =E2=80=98t=E2=80=99 is not an integral constant-expres=
sion
   11 |     int t[off_p()];

So it seems, "constexpr const" is not
enough to alter the structure size, so
your fears about that were likely wrong.

So could you please explain why note4 doesn't
apply to the nested closure type? Unless
there is a consistent explanation, the
chances are that the bug is missed. :(=