https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16) > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15) > > > where if I understand you correctly, bar () is not allowed to modify *this > > > (unless I pass it an argument to it, of course), even if *this is for > > > example > > > > Why? Because it is a constructor and the object isn't fully constructed yet > > at that point? > > Yes, exactly. The object's lifetime has not started until the constructor > completes, so accessing it is only allowed in very limited ways, described > in [basic.life] p6. However, it looks like for a non-trivial constructor the > results are just unspecified, not undefined, see [class.cdtor] p2. Still, I > don't see how operator new could meaningfully do anything to an object under > construction if the object is in an unspecified state. And frankly, if > anybody did write an operator new like that, they deserve what they get. > > Could we have a flag that says "assume operator new is not stupid"? We certainly could add that and with that revert the effect of not making new/delete "pure" (I'd have to look up the PR we've reverted the change that generally made it so).
