------- Comment #2 from bagnara at cs dot unipr dot it 2007-10-06 13:03 ------- I don't understand. Do you mean that what I consider the natural compilation of that piece of code (the shorter assembly listing) is incorrect? In other words: do you think that the shorter assembly listing does not properly honor the volatile qualifier? If so, why?
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33675
