It was pointed out to me after I joined #llvm when considering reporting this that using the value of "b", which is defined after "a" in the class before it has

It was pointed out to me after I joined #llvm when considering reporting this that using the value of "b", which is defined after "a" in the class before it has been initialized is, I suppose obviously in retrospect, undefined behavior. In effect, I was subverting the undefined behavior associated with expanding a set of infinitely deep template instantiations by accessing a variable that was as yet undefined at the point of access. So, my initial retractions stand, and this compiler behavior will remain appropriately undefined.