================
@@ -169,6 +169,20 @@ B b;
// since-cxx11-error@-1 {{call to implicitly-deleted default constructor of
'B'}}
// since-cxx11-note@#cwg2273-B {{default constructor of 'B' is implicitly
deleted because base class 'A' has a deleted default constructor}}
// since-cxx11-note@#cwg2273-A {{'A' has been explicitly marked deleted
here}}
+
+struct X {
+ X(float); // since-cxx11-note {{candidate inherited constructor}}
+ X(void*, int = 0) = delete;
+};
+
+struct Y : X {
+ using X::X; // since-cxx11-note {{constructor from base class 'X' inherited
here}}
+ Y(double); // since-cxx11-note {{candidate constructor}}
+ Y(void* const, long = 1);
+};
+
+Y y = 1; // since-cxx11-error {{conversion from 'int' to 'Y' is ambiguous}}
+Y z = nullptr;
----------------
Endilll wrote:
The wording says "same type", but here you have two constructors, where their
first parameter differs in cv-qualification. I suspect this case falls under
the usual "exact match is better than qualification conversion" case, and
doesn't need this tie-breaker, so this case is not related to CWG2273
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132830
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
