https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103843
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Georgii.Shagov from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > This is undefined code. The object is officially not live after you call the
> > deconstructor so GCC is able to remove the store from the deconstructor as
> > being dead.
>
> I appreciate your reply. But this is confusing. The object was NOT released
> (de-allocated). In essence Destructor is just a function.
No, the destructor is not just a function in C++, it terminates the object
being alive (not de-allocated though). You can then reuse the space for another
object, either the same type or a different type by using the inplacement new.
> Why the content of the class had been re-initialized?
It was not re-initialized rather the store was removed.
> IMU: there should be not such obvious difference between optimized and
> non-optimized code
why not, it is undefined code.
