https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69494
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Note since 'dev' is an automatic variable which address doesn't escape there's
no way to observe the access thus GCC is correct in eliding it. We could
behave the same as we do for a volatile automatic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69494
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to PR 66268 also.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69494
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to PR 47409
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69494
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69494
--- Comment #2 from Lukas ---
I was wrong about what part of the standard defines the behavior for volatile
access.
Paragraph 8 of [intro.execution] specifies that access to volatile objects is
observable behavior. Access is defined in
