public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "davveston at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/110958] New: [CWG 2137][accepts-invalid] Copy-list-initialization with single element of same class only considers converting constructors as viable Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 10:44:39 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-110958-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110958 Bug ID: 110958 Summary: [CWG 2137][accepts-invalid] Copy-list-initialization with single element of same class only considers converting constructors as viable Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: davveston at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- There are several (closed) bug reports relating to CWG 2137, particularly highlighting the still present implementation divergence between e.g. GCC and Clang. These mostly relate to whether or not a non-aggregate class initialized via single element init-list of same-class resolves to the rules of [over.match.list] or not. See e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla//show_bug.cgi?id=85577 and its duplicates I interpret the wording the same way as GCC, such that after CWG 2137 initializer list constructors take precedence over e.g. copy constructors ([over.match.list]/1.1). However, when falling through to [over.match.list]/1.2, GCC seems to consider only converting constructors as if following [over.match.ctor]/1, whereas by [over.match.list]/1.2 explicit constructors are still viable, although leading to an ill-formed program if picked as most viable. The following example is accepted by GCC: struct S { S() = default; S(S const&) = default; // #1 explicit S(S&) = delete; // #2 }; S a; S b = {a}; // #3 As #3 picks #1 for the copy-list-initialization. As of CWG 2137 I believe it should be rejected as ill-formed as #2 should be selected instead: ill-formed not due to deleted definition but due to the last paragraph of [over.match.list]/1. (Holds for various GCC versions and C++ language versions).
reply other threads:[~2023-08-09 10:44 UTC|newest] Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-110958-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).