http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52967
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gerasimov <karlicoss at gmail dot com> 2012-04-13 08:44:10 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > I don't know if this is not undefined code. > > v[0].a = run(); > > Is this: > double &a = v[0].a; > a = run(); > Or: > double tmp = run(); > v[0].a = tmp; > > I think both are correct because of the way the C++ standard defines =. Ok, I got this. If v[0].a = run(); is equivalent to double &a = v[0].a; a = run();, we: 1. calculate the address of a; 2. recurse into run 3. push_back, causing vector to increase its capacity and reallocate its memory, which makes a to point to free memory. I guess I should mark bug as Invalid?
