https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Created attachment 45903 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45903&action=edit gcc9-pr89585.patch Untested patch for better diagnostics of this in GCC 9, for GCC 8 we could just not diagnose volatile and ignore it. Now, looking at documentation, I'd say that the C parser didn't match the documentation and the C++ parser did (and no longer does), because we said that volatile is optional on Basic Asm, volatile and goto are allowed on Extended Asm, that at toplevel only Basic Asm is allowed and for Basic Asm: "The optional volatile qualifier has no effect. All basic asm blocks are implicitly volatile." To me that looks like a strong reason to at least accept it again in 8.x, it wasn't any kind of unspecified behavior, it was documented to be ignored. And perhaps we could reconsider this even for GCC 9 and allow and ignore even in C at toplevel.
