https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109159
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek <mpola...@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a226590fefb35ed66adf73d85cefe49048a78ab8 commit r13-6765-ga226590fefb35ed66adf73d85cefe49048a78ab8 Author: Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> Date: Fri Mar 17 18:25:13 2023 -0400 c++: explicit ctor and list-initialization [PR109159] When I implemented explicit(bool) in r9-3735, I added this code to add_template_candidate_real: + /* Now the explicit specifier might have been deduced; check if this + declaration is explicit. If it is and we're ignoring non-converting + constructors, don't add this function to the set of candidates. */ + if ((flags & LOOKUP_ONLYCONVERTING) && DECL_NONCONVERTING_P (fn)) + return NULL; but as this test demonstrates, that's incorrect when we're initializing from a {}: for list-initialization we consider explicit constructors and complain if one is chosen. PR c++/109159 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * call.cc (add_template_candidate_real): Add explicit decls to the set of candidates when the initializer is a braced-init-list. libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: * testsuite/20_util/pair/cons/explicit_construct.cc: Adjust dg-error. * testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/explicit_construct.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/23_containers/span/explicit.cc: Likewise. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/cpp0x/explicit16.C: New test.
