If you are an iPhone user, there is a great app called PocketPacket: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pocketpacket/id336500866?mt=8

So, what convincing cases have you find of i += 1 over i = i + 1?

It reduces code redundancy, especially when 'i' is something more descriptive. Though if someone were to claim that the redundancy of i=i+1 is a trivial price for settling on one consistent multipurpose construct, I wouldn't put up a fight. :)

Consider a more descriptive variable name and hopefully it becomes obvious:

    sheepCounted += 1

vs.

    sheepCounted = sheepCounted + 1

It can easily get way worse once you consider classes and their properties:

    pInterface->m_someField[currentItem] += 1;

There is a 3rd option here:

Allow apps to bypass review. These apps will be hosted on Apple and charged the 30% fee, but they will not be indexed and not be displayed in any way on iTunes. You will have to have a direct link to buy them and download them.

It appears that you are spreading FUD. In a thread discussing if one line bugs could be written on purpose, it is only fitting to discuss if you demonstrated gcc's failing by using a version older than 4.2 was also on purpose.

By the way, I'm interested to know which version you used.

How am I spreading FUD? By using an older version of GCC and reporting what I saw? Should I edit my post to remove all mentions of GCC and just leave how the code is interpreted as is?

It has to be before 4.2 (you never said which version you used), which is really old. And you went to all this trouble but never occurred to you that compiler version could be a factor?

Sure it could be an honest mistake, but that's also true for Apple's bug (and the rest).

Companies don't have feelings.