http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55893
--- Comment #6 from Frank Heckenbach <f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de> 2013-01-09 04:15:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > Caused by http://gcc.gnu.org/PR49673 I believe. Perhaps instead of testing > whether TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING we need to check if the type has non-trivial > destructor (is a user destructor on const qualified vars allowed to store into > the var anywhere?) According to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271046/if-changing-a-const-object-is-undefined-behavior-then-how-do-constructors-and-de (see references in the accepted answer), it is. So perhaps, if any user destructor exists (direct or indirect through base classes or fields), the object cannot be stored in read-only data (unless the compiler can prove that it's still safe). If none exists, then updating the vtable pointer is unneeded and it can be stored in read-only data.
