https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87363
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Using named struct members does not make a difference.
Of course it is possible that converting address of u.b.z
to const char *, makes the example undefined, as strlen is
not really accessing the bytes thru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87363
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think the *member* of the union here (the one that is active after the
initialization) is the anonymous struct containing x and y. That would
surely be the case if you named the two stru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87363
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
If u's initialization is viewed as a single assignment then you're right. If
the initialization of u is viewed as two separate assignments:
u.x = "1234";
u.y = "567";
then strictly speaking, after the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87363
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Other than that, since
>
> When a value is stored in a member of an object of union type, the bytes of
> the object representation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87363
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
