https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111923
--- Comment #6 from Stas Sergeev <stsp at users dot sourceforge.net> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > Nope, lamdba's are not a nested class. But according to this: https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n3337/expr.prim.lambda#3 The type of the lambda-expression (which is also the type of the closure object) is a unique, unnamed non-union class type — called the closure type — whose properties are described below. This class type is not an aggregate ([dcl.init.aggr]). The closure type is declared in the smallest block scope, class scope, or namespace scope that contains the corresponding lambda-expression. So am I right that defining lambda in class A, means defining it in a class's scope? In which case note4 should apply? What am I missing? Additionally I've got this to compile: struct A { struct dummy { static constexpr int foo(int off = offsetof(A, a)) { return off; } static constexpr int operator()() { return foo(); } }; static constexpr int (*off_p)() = &dummy::operator(); int x; char a; }; Seems like note4 applies in that case. But it should be very similar to the "closure type" described above...
