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 A6B323858C20; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 11:50:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A6B323858C20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1682682640;
	bh=b1wtj6XpEXJO1vYVpO5r2E5EzreoqySr8r6T8KocR2w=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=k1T8pdQHLLrLGIvgiey/1LQoSwXZN59/tkuLxmbo0KuDWEkyKfzi5VtK6JAlWIFd4
	 UeGhWpd7jDtAopc88FbsWVUkfLz2wJyihvcOmpiRZJ7FpeHzs4CkpACRnvjEvrGYQZ
	 pmSUGdKqh8HFNWh/n4NtFZg5diIUdWwaTw3GDTm4=
From: "carlosgalvezp at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/109663] False positive? Converting from initializer list
 would use explicit constructor
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 11:50:39 +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: 13.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: carlosgalvezp at gmail dot com
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-109663-4-8ZtlY02GRM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109663-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109663-4@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=3D109663

--- Comment #2 from Carlos Galvez <carlosgalvezp at gmail dot com> ---
I could reduce it to a simpler self-contained example:

struct Foo;

Foo const& foo_maker();

struct Bar
{
    explicit Bar(Foo const&);
};

void baz()
{
    Bar const& b{foo_maker()};
}

Godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/1q45Ebexz

Here it's clear that we are initializing a reference from a temporary, but
since it's a const reference, shouldn't it extend the lifetime of the
temporary? Clang does not complain in this case (it does when the reference=
 is
non-const).=