https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9872d56661ade358c440914361c1ebdccd975bec commit r14-1502-g9872d56661ade358c440914361c1ebdccd975bec Author: Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> Date: Fri May 26 12:28:15 2023 -0400 c++: fix explicit/copy problem [PR109247] In the testcase, the user wants the assignment to use the operator= declared in the class, but because [over.match.list] says that explicit constructors are also considered for list-initialization, as affirmed in CWG1228, we end up choosing the implicitly-declared copy assignment operator, using the explicit constructor template for the argument, which is ill-formed. Other implementations haven't implemented CWG1228, so we keep getting bug reports. Discussion in CWG led to the idea for this targeted relaxation: if we use an explicit constructor for the conversion to the argument of a copy or move special member function, that makes the candidate worse than another. DR 2735 PR c++/109247 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * call.cc (sfk_copy_or_move): New. (joust): Add tiebreaker for explicit conv and copy ctor. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-explicit3.C: New test.
