volatile semantics

[Paul Schlie]

> I did see Ian's summary,
>
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00714.html
>
> wherein he ascribed the semantics of the volatile qualifier to the
> access, and not to the object.  I agree with his description completely,
> as I believe it embodies the intuition that C programmers have used
> wrt these qualifiers since forever.
>
> So the answers to the "deleteable" questions above are no, no, yes.
> 
> And it's probably a one-line bug in our "can this cast be removed"
> function.

- or even more consistently: simply warn, and treat as specified in all
  cases. (as there's no value to exceptions otherwise)