https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115278
--- Comment #8 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org --- Thanks! Missed that Andrew. > It's a low-level worker, it relies on the caller to have performed sanity > checking on the stmt itself. I'm testing a patch doing that. OK, no strong opinion here, but do you reckon we should somehow make that clearer in terms of comments for this function? I was trying to think of whether there's a data-flow based reason to ever consider a write of a volatile ok for elimination, which is how I'd first interpret the meaning of the classification of this function. But I can't.
