您必须使用它来实现自旋锁以及一些(所有?)无锁数据结构 与原子操作/指令一起使用 曾经帮助我克服编译器的错误(在优化过程中错误地生成代码)

在标准C中，使用volatile的一个地方是在信号处理程序中。事实上，在标准C中，在信号处理程序中可以安全地做的就是修改易失性sig_atomic_t变量，或者快速退出。事实上，AFAIK，这是标准C中唯一需要使用volatile来避免未定义行为的地方。

ISO/IEC 9899:2011 §7.14.1.1 The signal function ¶5 If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or the signal handler calls any function in the standard library other than the abort function, the _Exit function, the quick_exit function, or the signal function with the first argument equal to the signal number corresponding to the signal that caused the invocation of the handler. Furthermore, if such a call to the signal function results in a SIG_ERR return, the value of errno is indeterminate.252) 252) If any signal is generated by an asynchronous signal handler, the behavior is undefined.

这意味着在标准C中，你可以这样写:

static volatile sig_atomic_t sig_num = 0;

static void sig_handler(int signum)
{
    signal(signum, sig_handler);
    sig_num = signum;
}

除此之外就没什么了。

POSIX对于在信号处理程序中可以做的事情要宽容得多，但仍然存在限制(其中一个限制是标准I/O库- printf()等-不能安全地使用)。

Dan Saks在《Volatile as a promise》一文中写道:

易失性对象是其值可能自发变化的对象。也就是说，当你声明一个对象为volatile时，你是在告诉编译器这个对象可能会改变状态，即使程序中没有任何语句显示要改变它。”

以下是他关于volatile关键字的三篇文章的链接:

明智地使用挥发剂 准确放置挥发剂 像承诺一样反复无常

为嵌入式开发，我有一个循环，检查可以在中断处理程序中更改的变量。如果没有“volatile”，循环就变成了noop——就编译器所知，变量永远不会改变，所以它优化了检查。

同样的事情也适用于在更传统的环境中可能在不同线程中更改的变量，但在那里我们经常进行同步调用，因此编译器在优化方面没有那么自由。

您必须使用它来实现自旋锁以及一些(所有?)无锁数据结构 与原子操作/指令一起使用 曾经帮助我克服编译器的错误(在优化过程中错误地生成代码)

我想引用Herb Sutter在GotW #95中的一句话，这有助于理解volatile变量的含义:

C++ volatile variables (which have no analog in languages like C# and Java) are always beyond the scope of this and any other article about the memory model and synchronization. That’s because C++ volatile variables aren’t about threads or communication at all and don’t interact with those things. Rather, a C++ volatile variable should be viewed as portal into a different universe beyond the language — a memory location that by definition does not obey the language’s memory model because that memory location is accessed by hardware (e.g., written to by a daughter card), have more than one address, or is otherwise “strange” and beyond the language. So C++ volatile variables are universally an exception to every guideline about synchronization because are always inherently “racy” and unsynchronizable using the normal tools (mutexes, atomics, etc.) and more generally exist outside all normal of the language and compiler including that they generally cannot be optimized by the compiler (because the compiler isn’t allowed to know their semantics; a volatile int vi; may not behave anything like a normal int, and you can’t even assume that code like vi = 5; int read_back = vi; is guaranteed to result in read_back == 5, or that code like int i = vi; int j = vi; that reads vi twice will result in i == j which will not be true if vi is a hardware counter for example).