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 81CB33857B97; Thu,  4 Jan 2024 08:24:09 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 81CB33857B97
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704356649;
	bh=m6wX4DRH7yC2D8nOQTT+27VqTa/a1o/bfUMk8K73RZU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Aqpf9nA+6yqL8FE3BGFnzGwQ7LhxXOuQFr3WRVF77uTCPPAo8K5zEhqWdWGrNui8S
	 WAbcroN8XgvyErkdTEf5fikDjWKc7bcqIEljqaDzGPvg/yKsNXxm13VpIAXzbxi+yi
	 HLSkSnCGkyIcnCVywXpnGriiFWZrwNq86hz79vu8=
From: "m.cencora at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/113064] assignement from temporary sometimes invokes
 copy-assign instead of move-assign operator
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2024 08:24:01 +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: m.cencora at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113064-4-kimKiyNaJx@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113064-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113064-4@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=3D113064

--- Comment #11 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
This is surprising to say the least because apparently for following code
(where both conversion operators return same type) the compiler somehow
correctly chooses && qualified overload:

struct bar
{
    bar() =3D default;

    bar(const bar&);
    bar(bar&&);

    bar& operator=3D(const bar&);
    bar& operator=3D(bar&&);
};

struct foo
{
    operator bar() const &;

    operator bar() &&;
};

void test()
{
    bar a =3D foo{}; // ok

    a =3D foo{};

    foo f;
    a =3D f; // ok
}

So why cannot it apply the same overload resolution, when conversion operat=
ors
return different type as in comment #4?

Do you think this qualifies for a defect report?=