casting away const and then mutating

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 07/23/2015 10:20 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 7/23/15 2:43 PM, anonymous wrote:
>> Steven disagrees and thinks that there are cases where it's ok. Namely,
>> this simple case would be ok:
>>
>> ----
>> int x;
>> const int *y = &x;
>> *(cast(int *)y) = 5;
>> ----
>
> Yes, IMO, this should simply work and be consistent. The compiler could
> use willful ignorance to assume x is still 0, but I find that to be
> counterproductive. It would have to implement flow analysis to determine
> that y must point at x, and then simply ignore the assignment during
> that analysis.
>...

No, it would be sufficient to have a simple form of constant propagation 
to screw up here.