http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #18 from Andrey Belevantsev <abel at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-19 09:28:56 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) > By the way I think we could get cases where the user wrote volatile in one > case > and non-volatile in another so fixing up the merging is still a good idea. Sure, but the comment 14 still applies -- I think that unless the middle-end will have the proper volatile semantics, it will be wrong to hide this issue in the scheduler, so I'm leaving this as it is for now.
