Lack of asm volatile qualifier (explicitly) again.

[Cecil Ward]

On Saturday, 1 August 2020 at 19:23:00 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On Saturday, 1 August 2020 at 02:36:41 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote:
>> On Thursday, 30 July 2020 at 07:05:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Ah. I wasn’t thinking about pure, although I do use it 
>> everywhere I can as a matter of course. The absence of 
>> something doesn’t hit you in the eye as an expression of the 
>> programmer’s intent I suppose, absence of pure just could mean 
>> the author forgot to put it in. I see your point though. The 
>> value of volatile I saw as in documentation.
>
> When the baseline for asm is volatile, I don't think it's 
> entirely surprising to consider pure as a cancellation of that 
> - afterall, if it truly is side-effect free, then it's fine for 
> the compiler to remove the statement block.

We are in agreement.