Fascinating. Does anyone know why x escapes here? Is it an optimization miss? Because to my untrained eye modifying x should still be undefined behavior.
Does the way x is initialized make it not "const-y" enough?
Does the way x is initialized make it not "const-y" enough?
const int y = 42;
const int x = y;
So, it seems that all these compilers agree that modifying `x` is undefined behavior if `y` is const, but is defined if `y` is mutable.
I am not sure why this is.
I may have misunderstood, but I didn't get the impression this should be the case from reading: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/cv
My best guess is that for some reason, `x` is a constant object only if initialized itself via a constant object. But I couldn't find anything saying that is the case. I asked on the #learn channel of cppslack.