Endilll wrote: > However, at the language level, I cannot find any wording either way.
In my reading, http://eel.is/c++draft/basic.types.general#11 makes any type layout-compatible with itself, and even ignores cv-qualification: > Two types cv1 T1 and cv2 T2 are [layout-compatible > types](http://eel.is/c++draft/basic.types.general#def:type,layout-compatible) > if T1 and T2 are the same type, [layout-compatible > enumerations](http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.enum#def:layout-compatible,enumeration), > or [layout-compatible standard-layout class > types](http://eel.is/c++draft/class.mem#def:layout-compatible,class)[.](http://eel.is/c++draft/basic.types.general#11.sentence-1) I find the gap between core language term and type trait rather unfortunate. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87737 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
