Inline assembler stupidity

I keep getting caught by this, because this is a perfect example of the compiler doing something contrary to what you're writing.

  asm volatile (
                "ldr %0, [%1]\n\t"
                "add %0, %0, #1\n\t"
                "str %0, [%1]\n\t"
                : "=r" (tmp)
                : "r" (p)
                :
                );

Guess what this gets compiled to?

  30: f9400000  ldr x0, [x0]
  34: 91000400  add x0, x0, #0x1
  38: f9000000  str x0, [x0]

...equivalent to, of course,

  asm volatile (
                "ldr %0, [%0]\n\t"
                "add %0, %0, #1\n\t"
                "str %0, [%0]\n\t"
                : "+r" (p)
                :
                :
                );

The sort of aggressive and non-obvious optimization is crazy because if I really wanted the generated code, I'd have written the inline asm the second way with a read and write modifier. Maybe for architectures with specialized and very few registers this is a reasonable approach, but for RISCish instruction sets with large instruction files this is nuts. There should be a warning option for this nonsense.

This "correct way" is to use an earlyclobber modifier.

  asm volatile (
                "ldr %0, [%1]\n\t"
                "add %0, %0, #1\n\t"
                "str %0, [%1]\n\t"
                : "=&r" (tmp)
                : "r" (p)
                :
                );

IMO anything that needs a separate paragraph in third-party documents as "a caveat" needs to be fixed.

Speaking of which... Given that C really is a high-level assembly, why not finally standardize on inline asm?