Clang produces different output based on whether conversion function is explicitly called or not

Consider the following program where clang gives different behavior for `#5` and `#6`. [Demo](https://godbolt.org/z/eno7n699f)

```c++
struct S {

template
constexpr operator T()&&
{
return 10;
}
constexpr operator int()const
{
return 4;
}

};

//static_assert( S{}==10); //#5 MSVC NO, Clang NO, GCC OK, EDG OK
static_assert(S{}.operator int() ==10); //#6 MSVC NO, Clang OK, GCC NO, EDG NO
```

I think both `#5` and `#6` should give same result.

Start by compiling the linked Godbolt program and comparing the behavior of assertions #5 and #6 across Clang and the other listed compilers. Trace how Clang handles the conversion function in each expression; done means resolving the discrepancy so both forms produce the same result, consistent with the issue's expectation.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.