casting away const and then mutating

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/24/15 3:02 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> 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.

What do you mean?

-Steve