Equivalences *look* broken

[François-Xavier Coudert]

>> MAIN__ ()
>> {
>>   union
>>   {
>>     real4 pool3[100];
>>     real4 pool[100];
>>   } equiv.0;
>>   real4 pool3[100];
>>   real4 pool[100];
>
> There is nothing wrong about this.  The code will use equiv.0.pool{,3},
> the pool3 and pool variables are in the BIND_EXPR just for debugging
> purposes.

I understand that, I was only asking if something more explicit could
be written in the tree dump. The virtue of being able to dump trees
is, in my mind, that one understand what's happening. I find this
example very misleading.

FX