| Issue |
123700
|
| Summary |
Should operands in ternary operator be allowed to have explicit copy constructor?
|
| Labels |
new issue
|
| Assignees |
|
| Reporter |
Rush10233
|
I've got a very confusing output with the following test:
```c++
struct QString
{
QString()=default;
explicit QString( const QString & );
};
QString def(){
return QString{};
};
void foo( bool b, QString s )
{
auto res = b ? def() : s;
}
```
It turns out that GCC accepts this with `-std=c++17` or above; EDG and ICC always accept, and clang and MSVC always reject even with `-std=c++17` or above: https://godbolt.org/z/zhza8Krfa
The diagnostic of clang and MSVC points out that if `s` is taken, the conversion from `s` to `res` will implicitly use the copy ctor of `QString`, which is not allowed:
```c++
<source>:13:29: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'QString'
13 | auto res = b ? def() : s;
| ^
<source>:4:14: note: explicit constructor is not a candidate
4 | explicit QString( const QString & );
| ^
<source>:3:5: note: candidate constructor not viable: requires 0 arguments, but 1 was provided
3 | QString()=default;
| ^
1 error generated.
```
Although the diagnostic sounds reasonable here, I still wonder if the standard has been made some changes since C++17 according to the behavior of GCC.
![]()
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
