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 E2A823857C40; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 01:03:58 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E2A823857C40
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1598749438;
 bh=CIVfZFShEee5l1UgHsfeaplicV6c31OirnuvejFWGIo=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:From;
 b=ta/bV/9UffZIvsdak+sxJBckjmXUY3RndfQlB8dng7gU3ad/wVoOvgwDvSRqvE82W
 OyHQ4bd+B42zNUBk2/tywhmy+LAWwydl48OoM8o4BCMjhv0hHpP3l4OIM+Hpy4+LrA
 8d8D6SdlWV3gOR2gj5X44MBo2KtK0jjwrLbTFlDY=
From: "northon_patrick3 at yahoo dot ca" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/96848] New: Inherited conditionally explicit constructors
 via using declaration do not enforce explicitness if dependent on template
 parameter
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 01:03:58 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: northon_patrick3 at yahoo dot ca
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: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status
 bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone
Message-ID: <bug-96848-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 01:03:59 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96848

            Bug ID: 96848
           Summary: Inherited conditionally explicit constructors via
                    using declaration do not enforce explicitness if
                    dependent on template parameter
           Product: gcc
           Version: 10.2.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: northon_patrick3 at yahoo dot ca
  Target Milestone: ---

Example: https://godbolt.org/z/4x9r7e

```cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>

struct E {};
struct F {};
struct G {};

template <typename From_, typename To_>
constexpr bool isValidImplicitConvert =3D false;
template <>
constexpr bool isValidImplicitConvert<E, G> =3D true;

template <typename T_>
struct A
{
        template <typename OT_>
        explicit(!isValidImplicitConvert<OT_, T_>) constexpr A(const OT_ &)=
 {}

        //explicit(isValidImplicitConvert<E, T_>) constexpr A(E) {}
        //explicit(isValidImplicitConvert<F, T_>) constexpr A(F) {}
};

template <typename T_>
struct B : public A<T_>
{
        using A<T_>::A;
};

int main(int, char **)
{
        std::cout << std::is_convertible_v<E, A<G>> << '\n';
        std::cout << std::is_convertible_v<F, A<G>> << '\n';

        std::cout << std::is_convertible_v<E, B<G>> << '\n';
        std::cout << std::is_convertible_v<F, B<G>> << '\n';

        return 0;
}
```

Output:
```
1
0
1
1
```

Expected output:
```
1
0
1
0
```

When inheriting constructors from a base class via a using declaration, if =
said
constructors are conditionally explicit and the condition is dependent on a
deduced template parameter, the explicit state is ignored.

Clang give the expected output, however I am not sure who is correct.=