Might a -native-semantics switch, forcing native target optimization semantics, be reasonable?

[Mike Stump]

On Jan 1, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Paul Schlie wrote:
> - x[y] = 0;
>   if (x[y]) y = y+1;

And how does this differ from the portable code in which x points to  
volatile data?  If none, what are the advantages in being able to  
write non-portable code that leaves the volatile out over standard  
conforming code with the volatile in?