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 21B5E3858CD1; Thu,  1 Jun 2023 03:00:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 21B5E3858CD1
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1685588443;
	bh=rynIe8PR8NWVHjJK5VrCKo5k/Fg3Br+uUSWuQKcVNI8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=m84p/l1ihu3kSVtB6ngcCzGAglOF6wbqehJk7WPz78rzyRlyXOf8FYk8Eed6FlYCj
	 64LSJKocdVwcGC/NCV1y8nq/zZLrE+Zpk6uQ7+HKJIpevVP2unbtsMwvXMqNfR/OEM
	 27KhNVPisI45xsztnzaJMgG9GVzM5J/qV74ec0Y8=
From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/84849] [DR1228] Ambiguous resolution of braze initializer
 list to a class with explicit constructors
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2023 03:00:42 +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: 7.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED
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-84849-4-JZe43qIjbi@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-84849-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-84849-4@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=3D84849

--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to ensadc from comment #7)
> (In reply to Zhihao Yuan from comment #6)
>=20
> I think this is a different bug. GCC thinks the implicitly-deleted move
> assignment operator `pair<int&>& pair<int&>::operator=3D(pair<int&>&&)` i=
s a
> candidate for the assignment, which causes ambiguity with
> `operator=3D(value_type&&)` (where value_type =3D pair<int>). But as part=
 of
> resolution of CWG 1402, [class.copy.assign] specifies that "A defaulted m=
ove
> assignment operator that is defined as deleted is ignored by overload
> resolution".

Incidentally, no: GCC mentions it, but considers it worse than any other
candidate.  The real ambiguity is with
operator=3D(const pair<int&>&), the implicitly-deleted *copy* assignment.  I
don't think this is a bug; if you disagree, please open another PR for it.=