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 704DA3857375; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:42:52 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 704DA3857375
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/88165] error: default member initializer for 'A::B::m'
 required before the end of its enclosing class
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:42:52 +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: 8.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: DUPLICATE
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-88165-4-QSCAdEI9Rr@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-88165-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-88165-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:42:52 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D88165

--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to andysem from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> > >     C(D =3D {});
> >=20
> > This requires checking whether C::D is default constructible, but we are
> > still in the body of C, so C is not complete, which means C::D is not
> > complete, which means we don't know if C::D is default constructible.
>=20
> Does it? I thought the default arguments were only evaluated at the point
> where they are actually used, i.e. in this case - when `C` constructor is
> invoked with no arguments.

It's surprising, I agree. Whether the default argument is valid determines
whether this constructor is considered a default constructor, which determi=
nes
whether the compiler needs to implicitly declare a separate default constru=
ctor
I think that's why the default argument is needed earlier than you expect.

> If this is how the standard specifies compiler behavior, I wonder if this
> should be considered as a defect (DR).=20

I closed this as a dup of PR 96645 which has a DR number right there in the
title. Like I said, see there for more details.

> There is nothing in
> `std::numeric_limits<double>::max()` that depends on the definition of `C=
`,
> so there is no reason to prevent it from compiling.

Are you sure? What if C::std is declared? Then the initializer means someth=
ing
very different. Again, see PR 96645 for further discussion of when the
initializer can be compiled (and a possible patch to do it differently).=