> I did see Ian's summary, > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00714.html > > wherein he ascribed the semantics of the volatile qualifier to the > access, and not to the object. I agree with his description completely, > as I believe it embodies the intuition that C programmers have used > wrt these qualifiers since forever. > > So the answers to the "deleteable" questions above are no, no, yes. > > And it's probably a one-line bug in our "can this cast be removed" > function.
- or even more consistently: simply warn, and treat as specified in all cases. (as there's no value to exceptions otherwise)
