https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #10) > I read DR 1630 again and cannot follow that conclusion - could you clarify? > It still says "For copy-initialization, the candidate functions are all the > converting constructors (12.3.1 [class.conv.ctor]) of that class" and the > issue example uses an explicit default constructor. Yes, but the previous sentence now says "For direct-initialization or default-initialization, the candidate functions are all the constructors of the class of the object being initialized." This is default-initialization by way of value-initialization, so I think this sentence takes priority over the one you quote.
