https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82340
--- Comment #2 from Pascal Cuoq <pascal_cuoq at hotmail dot com> --- Richard: > I don't see how a volatile compound literal could make any sense or how > you'd observe the side-effect of multiple stores to it Well, I have the same question about volatile variables the address of which is not taken. But this is off-topic for this bug report, in which the volatile's object's address is taken. > (IIRC compound literals are constant!?). The C11 standard invites the programmer to use the const qualifier if they want a constant compound literal, and gives an explicit example of a “modifiable” non-const compound literal: https://port70.net/~nsz/c/c11/n1570.html#6.5.2.5p12
