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 9702138515C9; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 21:16:49 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9702138515C9
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1679087809;
	bh=ap44e+Y1HfF+Q7Y5MUA8jSq8goxZJUec495v7EPWDt4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Vve7CxmgajwlV9xxoZCqjhCsXqhKc9UcSVA3yRtE5b7XWkQ6mHOOymWJoAQi+4Pm6
	 Mtt37bMLVX/UPHciIniS8oisOsoPovBa/gRUnogMVcPA1ve2F2i0+nz+GApFNunlhq
	 jdrbTAkmkdW1pS1BSVF2+7PVDYY5LkY+eiRbKQns=
From: "mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/109159] [10/11/12/13 Regression] explicit constructor is
 used in copy-initialization
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 21:16:49 +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: 12.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109159-4-j8QNtVRxwI@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109159-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109159-4@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=3D109159

--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This hunk broke it:

@@ -3251,6 +3251,12 @@ add_template_candidate_real (struct z_candidate
**candidates, tree tmpl,
       goto fail;
     }

+  /* Now the explicit specifier might have been deduced; check if this
+     declaration is explicit.  If it is and we're ignoring non-converting
+     constructors, don't add this function to the set of candidates.  */
+  if ((flags & LOOKUP_ONLYCONVERTING) && DECL_NONCONVERTING_P (fn))
+    return NULL;


It doesn't check for BRACE_ENCLOSED_INITIALIZER_P (or some similar flag mea=
ning
we're initializing from an initializer_list) and that's the bug.=