creating a garbage BASELINK; constructors can't be inherited. */
ctors = get_class_binding (totype, complete_ctor_identifier);
+ tree to_nonref = non_reference (totype);
if (MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P (fromtype))
{
- tree to_nonref = non_reference (totype);
if (same_type_ignoring_top_level_qualifiers_p (to_nonref, fromtype) ||
(CLASS_TYPE_P (to_nonref) && CLASS_TYPE_P (fromtype)
&& DERIVED_FROM_P (to_nonref, fromtype)))
tree conversion_path = TREE_PURPOSE (conv_fns);
struct z_candidate *old_candidates;
+ /* If LOOKUP_NO_CONVERSION, don't consider a conversion function that
+ would need an addional user-defined conversion, i.e. if the return
+ type differs in class-ness from the desired type. So we avoid
+ considering operator bool when calling a copy constructor.
+
+ This optimization avoids the failure in PR97600, and is allowed by
+ [temp.inst]/9: "If the function selected by overload resolution can be
+ determined without instantiating a class template definition, it is
+ unspecified whether that instantiation actually takes place." */
+ tree convtype = non_reference (TREE_TYPE (conv_fns));
+ if ((flags & LOOKUP_NO_CONVERSION)
+ && !WILDCARD_TYPE_P (convtype)
+ && (CLASS_TYPE_P (to_nonref)
+ != CLASS_TYPE_P (convtype)))
+ continue;
+
/* If we are called to convert to a reference type, we are trying to
find a direct binding, so don't even consider temporaries. If
we don't find a direct binding, the caller will try again to
--- /dev/null
+// { dg-do compile { target c++20 } }
+
+// Here, normal overload resolution would consider B::operator bool when
+// evaluating A(b), leading to a hard error instantiating Error<int>, but we
+// avoid considering it by noticing that converting bool (a scalar) to A (a
+// class) would require a user-defined conversion, which is not allowed when
+// we're already dealing with the user-defined conversion to A.
+
+// This seems to be allowed by [temp.inst]/9: "If the function selected by
+// overload resolution (12.4) can be determined without instantiating a class
+// template definition, it is unspecified whether that instantiation actually
+// takes place."
+
+template <class T>
+struct Error { static constexpr auto value = T::value; };
+
+struct A { A(const A&); };
+
+template <class T>
+struct B { operator bool() requires Error<T>::value; };
+
+template <class T>
+concept C = requires (B<T> b) { A(b); };
+
+static_assert(!C<int>);
--- /dev/null
+// { dg-do compile { target c++20 } }
+
+// But make sure we do consider template conversions that could produce the
+// right type.
+
+template <class T>
+struct Error { static constexpr auto value = T::value; }; // { dg-error "not a member" }
+
+struct A { A(const A&); };
+
+template <class T>
+struct B { template <class U> operator U() requires Error<T>::value; };
+
+template <class T>
+concept C = requires (B<T> b) { A(b); }; // { dg-message "required from here" }
+
+static_assert(!C<int>);