Hello, I know that using a class after a destructor is called is a nasty thing and I already changed the code, but I am curious if gcc is allowed by the standard to eliminate stores to member variables. I had code similar to the following: Destructor: if (_pAlloc) free(_pAlloc); _pAlloc = 0; _SomeData = 0; what happened was that I explicitly called the destructor for "cleanup" in another method. The free was called, and after the instance went out of scope it was called again with the same address. It also reported "_SomeData" with its previous value, the member was accessed shortly after the call to the destructor so it cant be because of inlining + dead-code elimination. Of course I now have that code in an own cleanup function and dont call the destructor explicitely. But I am still surprised that gcc kills those writes.
