From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-64876-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 112906 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2020 10:57:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 112894 invoked by uid 89); 3 Mar 2020 10:57:10 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*RU:209.85.128.52, HX-Received:a7b, HX-Spam-Relays-External:209.85.128.52
X-HELO: mail-wm1-f52.google.com
Received: from mail-wm1-f52.google.com (HELO mail-wm1-f52.google.com) (209.85.128.52) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 10:57:09 +0000
Received: by mail-wm1-f52.google.com with SMTP id p9so2592707wmc.2        for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 02:57:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to         :cc;        bh=9ehj1faaQ0cnfYyDklib0KU7THBh0Gqj7RQ9PwFcWA4=;        b=WGTZa+k/6sfl2zmL+hlZnjDZX+wNnGSGPivGqm8BJ7Dl/nCyRCN3Yb+zk3ECou5wVq         jmF9fNi+0vCIawzNI4aOIc5xwPMpssXswxuvbkLcHFMOwWitRCzedmMozWg45fsqIqEc         O1TsKlqkkYyO/AQvNhR8ZillBa5slHvyn53CO/vTcE6Y5lfCq0hodL4VQi9iQJFHV1Ee         H0bAVRaAkvjTIdON/8U7ZkAgvHmOMv4yMLf1sqHziFi5yPe16I+ErHidB/01vlp/sXqE         vMxgV3lBRzQdfJpEvUgiYRasB2JzngIjeWzZhdeJqjvVu9tmcMhMI/4gAAm9ZdJIghzZ         BVyg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPpySAazpAWfhzfuFo6Kmc4T2HGcGPe0MfuLZds6TtqSj414CQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPpySAazT8-1Rv3iieg7pOUeYnaPmg_+gSoLyRKbnDbj4En66w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPpySAazT8-1Rv3iieg7pOUeYnaPmg_+gSoLyRKbnDbj4En66w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 10:57:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdS+7gY-+0Gt04+6eQxm6eVQe7YzKsc=zomWU+u4ww+Lqg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: C++ expected-to-fail compilation goes through by not detecting mutable-specifier on lambda...
To: leon zadorin <leonleon77@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2020-03/txt/msg00011.txt

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 03:55, leon zadorin <leonleon77@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 1:57 PM leon zadorin <leonleon77@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > template<typename T>
> > void foo(T const f)
> > {
> >     f();
> > }
> ...
> > the effect of 'mutable' (i.e. making operator()() non-const) are not
> detected by GCC/clang to a point where both of the following compile ok:
> > int main()
> > {
> >     foo([](){});
> >     foo([]() mutable {});
> > }
> >
>
> ... actually never mind, I take it back :)  I think GCC/clang are ok in
> that regard, reading https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/lambda
> "mutable: allows body to modify the parameters captured by copy, and to
> call their non-const member functions"
>
> makes it more clear for me... as in the above lambdas have no captures
> anyways (i.e. no effect), and with any captures (e.g. mutating with
> mutable) the expected compilation failure becomes evident, so in effect
> GCC/clang are doing this fine :)

What they're doing seems kinda OK, but I think it's not actually
allowed by the standard. The wording does say that unless the lambda
uses the mutable keyword, the function call operator is
const-qualified.

So I think this is a bug.