Reading the (ISO 9899:2018) standard literally, then it is undefined behavior.
C17 5.1.2.3/2 - definition of side effects:
Accessing a
volatileobject, modifying an object, modifying a file, or calling a function that does any of those operations are all side effects
C17 6.5/2 - sequencing of operands:
If a side effect on a scalar object is unsequenced relative to either a different side effect on the same scalar object or a value computation using the value of the same scalar object, the behavior is undefined. If there are multiple allowable orderings of the subexpressions of an expression, the behavior is undefined if such an unsequenced side effect occurs in any of the orderings.
Thus when reading the standard literally, volatile_var - volatile_var is definitely undefined behavior. Twice in a row UB actually, since both of the quoted sentences apply.
Please also note that this text changed quite a bit in C11. Previously C99 said, 6.5/2:
Between the previous and next sequence point an object shall have its stored value modified at most once by the evaluation of an expression. Furthermore, the prior value shall be read only to determine the value to be stored.
That is, the behaviour was previously unspecified in C99 (unspecified order of evaluation) but was made undefined by the changes in C11.
That being said, other than re-ordering the evaluation as it pleases, a compiler doesn't really have any reason to do wild and crazy things with this expression since there isn't much that can be optimized, given volatile.
As a quality of implementation, mainstream compilers seem to maintain the previous "merely unspecified" behavior from C99.
