diff mbox

[C++,Patch/RFC] PR 54521

Message ID 559FF922.4040705@oracle.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Paolo Carlini July 10, 2015, 4:56 p.m. UTC 
Hi,

in this rather old issue, we fail to include explicit constructors in 
the second step of a copy-initialization and the below is rejected. I'm 
not 100% sure, but using the existing comments as a guide, I think I 
found the place where we wrongly set LOOKUP_ONLYCONVERTING for the 
second step too. The minimal change passes testing, anyway.

Thanks,
Paolo.

////////////////////////

Comments

Jason Merrill July 10, 2015, 7:01 p.m. UTC | #1 
OK.

Jason
diff mbox

Patch

Index: cp/call.c
===================================================================
--- cp/call.c	(revision 225678)
+++ cp/call.c	(working copy)
@@ -6437,12 +6437,14 @@  convert_like_real (conversion *convs, tree expr, t
       /* Copy-initialization where the cv-unqualified version of the source
 	 type is the same class as, or a derived class of, the class of the
 	 destination [is treated as direct-initialization].  [dcl.init] */
-      flags = LOOKUP_NORMAL|LOOKUP_ONLYCONVERTING;
+      flags = LOOKUP_NORMAL;
       if (convs->user_conv_p)
 	/* This conversion is being done in the context of a user-defined
 	   conversion (i.e. the second step of copy-initialization), so
 	   don't allow any more.  */
 	flags |= LOOKUP_NO_CONVERSION;
+      else
+	flags |= LOOKUP_ONLYCONVERTING;
       if (convs->rvaluedness_matches_p)
 	flags |= LOOKUP_PREFER_RVALUE;
       if (TREE_CODE (expr) == TARGET_EXPR
Index: testsuite/g++.dg/init/explicit3.C
===================================================================
--- testsuite/g++.dg/init/explicit3.C	(revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/init/explicit3.C	(working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ 
+// PR c++/54521
+
+struct X
+{
+  X(int) {}
+  explicit X(X const &) {}
+};
+
+int main()
+{
+  X x = 1;
+}