From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 058E1385ED4C; Thu,  2 May 2024 09:28:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 058E1385ED4C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1714642112;
	bh=ukOpOYSNMJ1ofyrfAyM1r8MDlaavEgBxGofhm0DpxUo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=bbxHo4dE2eFNJ1LPrbxIzw4ohdlvBRJcZtR2eEts+In2OKNNWxkjPFz+8SZf9iDjn
	 ++roU6gN1nlU/qaVZ3FCOypKo3WgL+LLaW1nAxBuaBFxbwpX5TrUtTrfUXjkM7NXHU
	 kBQocpC2PvJkXhUeUKpl0ggnHqrEpIbzos+Vh5u0=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/102257] call of overloaded 'tuple' is ambiguous
Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 09:28:31 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: everconfirmed bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on
Message-ID: <bug-102257-4-MWR4hzeCZX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102257-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102257-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102257

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2024-05-02

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > See https://wg21.link/cwg1228 this might be invalid code and GCC is cor=
rect
> > in rejecting it.
>=20
> So dup of PR 84849 ?

This seems more closely related to Bug 113300, i.e. CWG 2856, because this =
is
about explicit default ctors not explicit copy/move ctors.=