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 BDC893858D39; Sat,  3 Dec 2022 18:49:20 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BDC893858D39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1670093360;
	bh=EC43dZ9Ro1rnEUN89YYIxpO8IKTu1JA4HGkTw4dTw3A=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=iY4wa3pVg/9SG/uLYWzQXEemDoU8SYXV0ufiV28VU+IdXs5GpVEslOz7wgBdc1rYr
	 6EkW4LZW9tEYBfSljIrazOE3WGPC8N+0WgvrDu3ZHlm8RP085dBNWVLC62HplER5RL
	 wfvMA0N+Gf93Ot3T4r+9cybJxT6P7aXQHasN/KfA=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/107958] Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded
 operator and explicit constructor
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2022 18:49:20 +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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
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: resolution bug_status see_also
Message-ID: <bug-107958-4-qpDCrPEyzW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107958-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107958-4@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=3D107958

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
           See Also|                            |https://github.com/llvm/llv
                   |                            |m-project/issues/28016

--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/28016 is the clang bug which
shows GCC is correct.  This is also
https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_closed.html#1228 .

So clang is wrong in accepting the code as not ambiguous .=