> If it was designed properly in the first place, there simply would *be > no problem at the tree level*, because nothing would have broken.
It's possible to have bugs anytime and that's all we have here: somebody is using the wrong alias set someplace. We fix that and all is OK. > So far you guys have resisted what seem like perfectly reasonable > solutions by Adam Because they turn off the feature rather than use it. I still don't understand what the difficulty is here and why you persist in thinking that type alias set of the type of a non-addressable field has any use at all: it doesn't and should be COMPLETELY ignored. All the code has been written to do that. Somebody is trying to directly compute an alias set instead of using get_alias_set and when you find that, you'll find the bug.
