[BUG] Member initialization of @value type not recognized

[simeonKuran]

Description
I tried to write a custom constructor for a @value type.
However, the compilation fails because the member initialization is not recognized

To Reproduce

Minimal example:

test: @value type =
{
    val: int;
    operator=:(out this, _val : int) = { val = _val; }
}

main: () -> int =
{
    x : test = (1);
    return 0;
}

Expected Result
A running program.

Actual result
Compiler error:

main.cpp2: error: in operator=, expected 'val = ...' initialization statement (because type scope object 'val' does not have a default initializer)
main.cpp2(3,5): error: see declaration for 'val' here
main.cpp2: error: an operator= body must start with a series of 'member = value;' initialization statements for each of the type-scope objects in the same order they are declared, or the member must have a default initializer (in type 'test')

Adding a default initializer like val: int = 1; works. But according to the diagnostic message the initial code should also work, because of the 'member = value;' initialization statement.

Additional context
I am using g++ 11.4.0 on Linux

[JohelEGP]

A @value has a default constructor.
So if val doesn't have a NSDMI, it's uninitialized.

[JohelEGP]

See also #453.

[JohelEGP]

Besides the lowered Cpp1, you can use @print to see the generated Cpp2 (https://cpp2.godbolt.org/z/9a9zcjjx9):

test: type =
{
    val: int;

    operator=:(
        out this,
        in _val: int
    ) =
    {
        val = _val;
    }

    operator<=>:(
        in this,
        in that
    ) -> move std::strong_ordering;

    operator=:(
        out this,
        in that
    ) =
    {
    }

    operator=:(out this) =
    {
    }
}

[simeonKuran]

Ah, of course! you are right.

I think the diagnostic error message for this example is a little bit misleading. However that's also already mentioned in #453 (although due to different reasons). So I will close this ticket.