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 36CC93858D20; Sat,  3 Dec 2022 18:46:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 36CC93858D20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1670093200;
	bh=dUKFzKt0K/h334Fq/8wqSXTv54OLDF66udWazEQI+68=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=MAeFuyyWbHTV3uSWdnDY/f0tkQHnkE3pXFrak91qt/q/RqEcTmJuaiZAUg0Q0KcJ1
	 yLezwre1uWOBDzICjTuY5CpP0wy4jrras1AErwy8bqE4qCnFrrRryr7WSax76zHt7U
	 v5AMRrWv72C3GbcU/9/cVBy6qfVgDjePLYKaPNag=
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 18:46:40 +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: 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: 
Message-ID: <bug-107958-4-vGFkQWHMoG@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

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> I think GCC and MSVC are correct here:
> [over.match.list]/16.3.1.7
> . In copy-listinitialization, if an explicit constructor is chosen, the
> initialization is ill-formed. [ Note: This differs from
> other situations (16.3.1.3, 16.3.1.4), where only converting constructors
> are considered for copy-initialization.
> This restriction only applies if this initialization is part of the final
> result of overload resolution. =E2=80=94 end note ]
>=20
>=20
> Even though the note is techincally not part of the standard, it describes
> why clang is wrong here. That is the explicit constructors are used too to
> figure out the overload and only if there was no ambiguous, it would be
> considered as ill-formed.

Also see clang bug https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/28016=