https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #9) > I believe that the resolution of DR 1630 clarifies that value-initialization > can invoke an explicit constructor even in copy-list-initialization context, > so I should revert my change for this PR. I read DR 1630 again and cannot follow that conclusion - could you clarify? It still says "For copy-initialization, the candidate functions are all the converting constructors (12.3.1 [class.conv.ctor]) of that class" and the issue example uses an explicit default constructor.
