C++11 value initializer vs list initializer

It seems empirically that C++ always prefers a list initializer over a value initializer. My question is thus how can I force value initialization of a type that also supports a direct list initialization. Here is a minimal non-working example:

#include <initializer_list>

using namespace std;

struct foo {
  foo(int) {}
  foo(initializer_list<char>) {}
};

struct bar {
  foo f{256};
};

In this example, I would like f to be initialized using the constructor foo(int) rather than the foo(initializer_list<char>). However, both GCC and Clang reject the code because 256 is too big for a char, which means obviously the C++ spec requires choosing the list initializer. Obviously commenting out the second constructor of foo fixes the problem. What's the easiest way to define bar so as to use value initialization on field f? Ideally I could avoid copy initializing f, because in my real example there is no copy constructor.