------- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-23 16:52
-------
this is placement-new related.
D.20941_8 = &ox
ox = { } no-tbaa-pruning
D.20941_8 = { ox }
alias warning for D.20941_8
After alias:
ox.D.20531.m_initialized = 0;
D.20941_8 = (struct X *) &ox.D.20531.m_storage.dummy_.data[0];
D.20941_8->e_ = 0;
ox.D.20531.m_initialized = 1;
D.20946_10 = ox.D.20531.m_initialized;
Before:
ox.D.20531.m_initialized ={v} 0;
<<<change_dynamic_type (struct X *) &ox.D.20531.m_storage.dummy_.data[0])>>>
D.20941_8 = (struct X *) &ox.D.20531.m_storage.dummy_.data[0];
D.20941_8->e_ ={v} 0;
ox.D.20531.m_initialized ={v} 1;
D.20946_10 = ox.D.20531.m_initialized;
so it looks like we do placement new on _parts_ of an object that
continues to live over that placement new.
Uh oh. Is this even legal?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38503
