legal ruling on aliasing

[Bruce Korb]

In another list, the issue was raised whether or not these
two constructs are completely equivalent under the laws of
aliasing:

   stumble_t s;
   function( (mumble_t*)(void*)&s );

versus:

   stumble_t s;
   {
      void* v = (void*)&s;  // scope constrained to following:
      function( (mumble_t*)v );
   }

In other words, would the compiler be allowed to presume that
function() did not modify `s'?  Particularly, could it make
such an assumption in one case and not the other?