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 86E9B3858414; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:16:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 86E9B3858414
From: "ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/102283] Inconsistent/wrong overload resolution when using
 an initializer list and a defaulted template parameter
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:16:14 +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: 11.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-102283-4-RFYcEs2YRl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102283-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102283-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:16:14 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102283

Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Reduced testcase:

struct A { };
struct B { };

void f(A&&); // #1
void f(const B&) =3D delete; // #2

int main() {
  f({});
}

It seems Clang and MSVC consider the ICS for #1 to be better than that for =
#2,
but I'm not sure why.

According to http://eel.is/c++draft/over.ics.rank#3.3 the two ICSes should =
be
incomparable since they initialize different classes, so at least according=
 to
that paragraph it appears GCC is behaving correctly here.=