https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61636
Adam Butcher <abutcher at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|adam at jessamine dot co.uk |abutcher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Adam Butcher <abutcher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to tower120 from comment #0)
>
> std::cout << if_else(do_first, data,
> [&](auto /*B&*/ data){
> std::cout << std::endl;
> std::cout << std::is_same<decltype(data), B>::value;
> std::cout << std::endl;
>
> return fn1(/*static_cast<B&>*/(data));
> },
> [&](A& data){ return fn2(data); }
> );
> }
> };
>
This works if "this->" is used to explicitly specify the object upon which to
call 'fn1'. It works whether or not the static_cast is present or whether auto
or B is is used.
It looks like a binding issue with lambda templates; the name 'fn1' is being
seen as a reference to the member function rather than an attempt to bind it to
the captured 'this' for a member call.
The fact that clang compiles it fine makes me think that this is indeed a
genuine bug and that the extra "this->" qualification is not required by the
language. In dependent base member access, an explicit "this->" is required,
but I don't think it should be necessary here.
I'll have a look into it; but I've limited time to do so at the mo.
