Is it safe to call placement new on `this` for trivial object?

The rules that cover this are in [basic.life]/5

A program may end the lifetime of any object by reusing the storage which the object occupies or by explicitly calling the destructor for an object of a class type. For an object of a class type, the program is not required to call the destructor explicitly before the storage which the object occupies is reused or released; however, if there is no explicit call to the destructor or if a delete-expression is not used to release the storage, the destructor is not implicitly called and any program that depends on the side effects produced by the destructor has undefined behavior.

and [basic.life]/8

If, after the lifetime of an object has ended and before the storage which the object occupied is reused or released, a new object is created at the storage location which the original object occupied, a pointer that pointed to the original object, a reference that referred to the original object, or the name of the original object will automatically refer to the new object and, once the lifetime of the new object has started, can be used to manipulate the new object, if:

• the storage for the new object exactly overlays the storage location which the original object occupied, and

• the new object is of the same type as the original object (ignoring the top-level cv-qualifiers), and

• the type of the original object is not const-qualified, and, if a class type, does not contain any non-static data member whose type is const-qualified or a reference type, and

• neither the original object nor the new object is a potentially-overlapping subobject ([intro.object]).

Since your object is trivial you don't have to worry about [basic.life]/5 and as long as you satisfy the bullet points from [basic.life]/8, then it is safe.

Similarly to the legality of delete this, placement new to this is also allowed as far as I know. Also, regarding whether this, or other pre-existing pointers / references can be used afterwards, there are a few restrictions:

[basic.life]

If, after the lifetime of an object has ended and before the storage which the object occupied is reused or released, a new object is created at the storage location which the original object occupied, a pointer that pointed to the original object, a reference that referred to the original object, or the name of the original object will automatically refer to the new object and, once the lifetime of the new object has started, can be used to manipulate the new object, if:

• the storage for the new object exactly overlays the storage location which the original object occupied, and
• the new object is of the same type as the original object (ignoring the top-level cv-qualifiers), and
• the type of the original object is not const-qualified, and, if a class type, does not contain any non-static data member whose type is const-qualified or a reference type, and
• neither the original object nor the new object is a potentially-overlapping subobject ([intro.object]).

The first two are satisfied in this example, but the last two will need to be taken into consideration.

Regarding the third point, given that the function is non-const-qualified, it should be fairly safe to assume that the original object is non-const. The fault is on the caller side if the constness has been cast away. Regarding const / reference member, I think that can be checked by asserting that this is assignable:

static_assert(std::is_trivial_v<A> && std::is_copy_assignable_v<A>);

Of course, since assignability is a requirement, you could instead simply use *this = {}; which I would expect to produce the same program. A perhaps more interesting use case might be to reuse memory of *this for an object of another type (which would fail the requirements for using this, at least without reinterpreting + laundering).

Similar to delete this, placement new to this could hardly be described as "safe".