http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57977
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos <daniel.santos at pobox dot com> --- Hmm, I guess it's actually the copy assignment operator. Either way, it makes sense if the const union member was "real", in this case, the copy assignment for this member would be a no-op (were we to copy it as that type), so the constness of this member should be ignored (as I understand it).
