5ab33c107f
This constructor matches way too many argument types (integral, unscoped enums, FP types), so it's likely to cause mayhem, even if left in as an explicit constructor. We now have a named constructor for the same functionality, so just drop the "unnamed" constructor. "Unnamed" constructors are important when emplacement is more efficient than construction + move, or when implicit conversion is required. Neither is the case here: The named as well as the "unnamed" constructors just copy ten bytes around, and the compiler can optimize those extra copies away just fine. Found in API review. Change-Id: I7faafd3ebf522fb2b0e450112fb95d643fece5ce Reviewed-by: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Ivan Solovev <ivan.solovev@qt.io> (cherry picked from commit 9c1d20337a5585c620e13776f9c33582f2e479d8) Reviewed-by: Qt Cherry-pick Bot <cherrypick_bot@qt-project.org>