You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
c++: CTAD and explicit deduction guides for copy-list-init [PR90210]
This PR points out that we accept
template<typename T> struct tuple { tuple(T); }; // #1
template<typename T> explicit tuple(T t) -> tuple<T>; // gcc-mirror#2
tuple t = { 1 };
despite the 'explicit' deduction guide in a copy-list-initialization
context. That's because in deduction_guides_for we first find the
user-defined deduction guide (gcc-mirror#2), and then ctor_deduction_guides_for
creates artificial deduction guides: one from the tuple(T) constructor and
a copy guide. So we end up with these three guides:
(1) template<class T> tuple(T) -> tuple<T> [DECL_NONCONVERTING_P]
(2) template<class T> tuple(tuple<T>) -> tuple<T>
(3) template<class T> tuple(T) -> tuple<T>
Then, in do_class_deduction, we prune this set, and get rid of (1).
Then overload resolution selects (3) and we succeed.
But [over.match.list]p1 says "In copy-list-initialization, if an explicit
constructor is chosen, the initialization is ill-formed." It also goes
on to say that this differs from other situations where only converting
constructors are considered for copy-initialization. Therefore for
list-initialization we consider explicit constructors and complain if one
is chosen. E.g. convert_like_internal/ck_user can give an error.
So my logic runs that we should not prune the deduction_guides_for guides
in a copy-list-initialization context, and only complain if we actually
choose an explicit deduction guide. This matches clang++/EDG/msvc++.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/90210
* pt.c (do_class_deduction): Don't prune explicit deduction guides
in copy-list-initialization. In copy-list-initialization, if an
explicit deduction guide was selected, give an error.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c++/90210
* g++.dg/cpp1z/class-deduction73.C: New test.
0 commit comments