https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev <stsp at users dot sourceforge.net> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > Because GCC can optimize that pun+dereference pattern without _not_ breaking Did you mean to say "without breaking the code"? I will assume it is the case: > the code, GCC decided it should not warn with =3. So there is no breakage then? Can I trust this no-warning? Or what did the above "not" meant?
