https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #13) > But that still doesn't make the types the same, and the use of the variable > in 2.ii has undefined behavior because it is accessing the value of the > object through the wrong type, so the warning is correct. We may want to > allow it anyway for C compatibility. Thoughts? This does seem like significant trouble to make something work that isn't actually valid C++, and it isn't hard to fix the code by giving the struct a name. Is the problematic header part of publicly available source code or only the benchmark?
