http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61004
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- B doesn't have a FIELD_DECL for its base A, not sure why. If we make A non-empty we get f ((const struct A &) (const struct A *) &b.D.2231) with empty A (and no field for it) we get f ((const struct A &) (const struct A *) &b) I suppose this is to avoid having two fields at the same offset if we make B not empty. Now, that we don't record the alias-set of A as subset of that of B isn't a problem in practice but for the (IMHO completely bogus) implementation of our strict-aliasing warnings.
