https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27642
Bug ID: 27642
Summary: Clang ignores 'explicit' constructors in
copy-list-initialization of function argument
Product: clang
Version: trunk
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: C++11
Assignee: unassignedclangb...@nondot.org
Reporter: e...@catmur.co.uk
CC: dgre...@apple.com, llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
Classification: Unclassified
Per N2532=08-0042 (http://www.stroustrup.com/list-issues-2.pdf) chapter 4 the
following program should be rejected as ambiguous:
struct String1 { explicit String1(const char*); };
struct String2 { String2(const char*); };
void f(String1);
void f(String2);
int main() {
f( {"asdf"} ); // error, ambiguous
}
This was confirmed by CWG 1228 (http://wg21.cmeerw.net/cwg/issue1228):
struct MyStore {
explicit MyStore(int initialCapacity);
};
struct MyInt {
MyInt(int i);
};
struct Printer {
void operator()(MyStore const& s);
void operator()(MyInt const& i);
};
void f() {
Printer p;
p({23}); // error, ambiguous
}
gcc (6.1 and preceding versions) correctly rejects both these programs.
I don't like this behavior, but it is what over.match.list prescribes.
Possible follow up to bug 12120.
Discussion:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34622076/calling-an-explicit-constructor-with-a-braced-init-list-ambiguous-or-not?rq=1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
