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 A5FAE3858D37; Sun, 22 Oct 2023 23:04:36 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A5FAE3858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1698015876;
	bh=EEaH3ZehR2sNlTPnHlkljEJYM0UJ5zMiIOWI02+/PUg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=uD3+ROoWhJuT/dYJksEbbLjBTigbiKfneDSlBRgiJtV5tU2i4ldRUZAOSSwsKOHaW
	 wbGhwWZk/NIpCOLSUj3zRGrN1xN0eJSX8onKy87PHNiJrv2qDtFVAyonm41DB7bceq
	 I/HmVX0TlDnOo5DbGcMrZMlGhEd8a/ugqojdrWPc=
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: Sun, 22 Oct 2023 23:04:36 +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-nGlpWLcUD1@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 #4 from Stas Sergeev <stsp at users dot sourceforge.net> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> One more note, default argument clause does not apply here as the it is n=
ot
> an argument of a method of that class but rather a different context (the
> lamdba definition context).

Yes, but doesn't this apply to the note4?
[Note 4:=E2=80=82A complete-class context of a nested class is also a compl=
ete-class
context of any enclosing class, if the nested class is defined within the
member-specification of the enclosing class.
=E2=80=94 end note]

Isn't lambda an instance of a nested class here?

> int off_p =3D offsetof(A, a);
> is well formed due to it being a DMI.

Thanks for info.
Do you happen to know the particular reason
why the standard disallows this for static
member? Shouldn't that be a DR?=