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 4A259385840F; Thu, 23 Mar 2023 14:04:03 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4A259385840F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1679580243;
	bh=WmxSO+F4Urchx1a1Ou2tfCtLDjrgaDYqtJaL3uGJvws=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=YipMh+P0QmRKusICoZxKV7I5kkKU7v+1xcmcOl3hy0y18I46ezZ9cTmIdRnY8+lJR
	 oon8mudS1vsOA9GJeUR2SbvJUiRuWNJCiYuWEHqbWnwewGYX9LeCQ7ffcB3DO358Y6
	 xBy1AjNUhBcwuikomGFcUDU32paN9lfNrrsUCLQI=
From: "ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/109247] [13 Regression] optional<T> o; o = {x}; wants to
 use explicit optional(U) constructor since r13-6765-ga226590fefb35ed6
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 14:04:02 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109247-4-3m40Z8eyzO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109247-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109247-4@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=3D109247

--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3)
> PR84849 seems related, especially the comment #5 testcase from ensadc:
>=20
> template<class>
> struct in_place_type_t { explicit in_place_type_t() =3D default; };
>=20
> struct A { };
>=20
> int f(A);
> int f(in_place_type_t<A>);
>=20
> int x =3D f({});

Oops, this testcase from PR84849 might be strictly speaking invalid and GCC
correct to reject as per
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102247#c2.  Is this PR not i=
nvalid
for the same reason?=