Possible compiler bug in MSVC++

Question

I believe I've found a compiler bug in MSVC++ (present up to VS 2013). I want to check that it is indeed a bug before I report it.

The following code:

#include <map>

using std::map;

template <typename T>
class A
{
public:
    typedef T StoredType;
};

template <typename T>
map<typename T::StoredType, int> foo()
{
    map<typename T::StoredType, int> ret;
    return ret;
}  

template<>
map<char, int> foo<A<char>>()
{
    map<char, int> ret;
    return ret;
} // Error on this line

int main(int, char**)
{
    return 0;
}

Produces a compile error:

1>d:\documents\visual studio 2010\projects\proj\proj\source1.cpp(24): error C2785: 'std::map<T::StoredType,int> foo(void)' and 'std::map<_Kty,_Ty> foo(void)' have different return types
1>          with
1>          [
1>              _Kty=char,
1>              _Ty=int
1>          ]
1>          d:\documents\visual studio 2010\projects\proj\proj\source1.cpp(13) : see declaration of 'foo'
1>          d:\documents\visual studio 2010\projects\proj\proj\source1.cpp(20) : see declaration of 'foo'
1>d:\documents\visual studio 2010\projects\proj\proj\source1.cpp(24): error C2912: explicit specialization; 'std::map<_Kty,_Ty> foo<A<T>>(void)' is not a specialization of a function template
1>          with
1>          [
1>              _Kty=char,
1>              _Ty=int,
1>              T=char
1>          ]

However, it looks OK to me, and compiles fine on ideone.com. Is it a bug? Should it compile cleanly?

Answer 1

What is interesting that the same thing on a class specialization works fine:

#include <map>

using std::map;

template <typename T>
class A
{
public:
    typedef T StoredType;
};

template <typename T>
struct Z
{
    map<typename T::StoredType, int> foo()
    {
        map<T::StoredType, int> ret;
        return ret;
    }  // Error on this line
};

template<>
struct Z<A<char>>
{
    map<char, int> foo()
    {
        map<char, int> ret;
        return ret;
    }
};

int main(int, char**)
{
    return 0;
}

If the map is defined in the template then it also seems fine:

#include <map>

using std::map;

template <typename T>
class A
{
public:
    typedef map<T, int> MapType;
};

template <typename T>
typename T::MapType foo()
{
    T::MapType ret;
    return ret;
}

template<>
map<char, int> foo<A<char>>()
{
    map<char, int> ret;
    return ret;
}

int main(int, char**)
{
    return 0;
}

So the assumption about the bug seems to be possible.