https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121219
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3) > It's another chicken-and-egg issue in that we do not know the type of g_r_o > when we first need to deal with the g_r_o_o_a_f > > > maybe something like ... wellllll that works providing the type of g_r_o_o_a_f is convertible to the type of g_r_o. ... so back to the question about whether we need more wording tweaks for CWG2563
