https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59969
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The attached example builds fine, I think you mean this: #include <map> struct A { int bla; A(int blub):bla(blub){} A(A&&) = delete; A(const A&) = delete; A& operator=(A&&) = delete; A& operator=(const A&) = delete; }; int main() { std::map<int, A> map; map.emplace(1, 1); } That code isn't valid. (In reply to gcc.gnu.org.49489419 from comment #0) > is preferred over the standard constructor > > template<class _U1, class _U2, > class = typename enable_if<__and_<is_convertible<_U1, _T1>, > is_convertible<_U2, _T2> > >::value > >::type> > constexpr pair(_U1&& __x, _U2&& __y) > : first(std::forward<_U1>(__x)), second(std::forward<_U2>(__y)) { } That constructor isn't valid because is_convertible<int, A> is false, because is_convertible is always false for non-movable types.