[Bug c++/90320] [8/9/10 Regression] Explicit constructor called implicitly

[Bug c++/90320] [8/9/10 Regression] Explicit constructor called implicitly

[mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90320

Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/90320] [8/9/10 Regression] Explicit constructor called implicitly

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90320

--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
Thanks Marek.

[Bug c++/90320] [8/9/10 Regression] Explicit constructor called implicitly

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90320

--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek <mpolacek@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:feb801f62239528bca2cfb6c3abd70d434b69c0a

commit r10-7979-gfeb801f62239528bca2cfb6c3abd70d434b69c0a
Author: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed Apr 22 20:12:47 2020 -0400

    c++: Explicit constructor called in copy-initialization [PR90320]

    This test is rejected with a bogus "use of deleted function" error
    starting with r225705 whereby convert_like_real/ck_base no longer
    sets LOOKUP_ONLYCONVERTING for user_conv_p conversions.  This does
    not seem to be always correct.  To recap, when we have something like
    T t = x where T is a class type and the type of x is not T or derived
    from T, we perform copy-initialization, something like:
      1. choose a user-defined conversion to convert x to T, the result is
         a prvalue,
      2. use this prvalue to direct-initialize t.

    In the second step, explicit constructors should be considered, since
    we're direct-initializing.  This is what r225705 fixed.

    In this PR we are dealing with the first step, I think, where explicit
    constructors should be skipped.  [over.match.copy] says "The converting
    constructors of T are candidate functions" which clearly eliminates
    explicit constructors.  But we also have to copy-initialize the argument
    we are passing to such a converting constructor, and here we should
    disregard explicit constructors too.

    In this testcase we have

      V v = m;

    and we choose V::V(M) to convert m to V.  But we wrongly choose
    the explicit M::M<M&>(M&) to copy-initialize the argument; it's
    a better match for a non-const lvalue than the implicit M::M(const M&)
    but because it's explicit, we shouldn't use it.

    When convert_like is processing the ck_user conversion -- the convfn is
    V::V(M) -- it can see that cand->flags contains LOOKUP_ONLYCONVERTING,
    but then when we're in build_over_call for this convfn, we have no way
    to pass the flag to convert_like for the argument 'm', because convert_like
    doesn't take flags.  Fixed by creating a new conversion flag, copy_init_p,
    set in ck_base/ck_rvalue to signal that explicit constructors should be
    skipped.

    LOOKUP_COPY_PARM looks relevant, but again, it's a LOOKUP_* flag, so
    can't pass it to convert_like.  DR 899 also seemed related, but that
    deals with direct-init contexts only.

            PR c++/90320
            * call.c (struct conversion): Add copy_init_p.
            (standard_conversion): Set copy_init_p in ck_base and ck_rvalue
            if FLAGS demands LOOKUP_ONLYCONVERTING.
            (convert_like_real) <case ck_base>: If copy_init_p is set, or
            LOOKUP_ONLYCONVERTING into FLAGS.

            * g++.dg/cpp0x/explicit13.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/cpp0x/explicit14.C: New test.

[Bug c++/90320] [8/9 Regression] Explicit constructor called implicitly

[mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90320

Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[8/9/10 Regression]         |[8/9 Regression] Explicit
                   |Explicit constructor called |constructor called
                   |implicitly                  |implicitly

--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed on trunk so far.  I'm considering backporting the fix to 9 too.

[Bug c++/90320] [8/9 Regression] Explicit constructor called implicitly

[mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90320

Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Actually, maybe not.  But it's fixed in GCC 10.  I can backport if anyone
thinks it's important.