除了volatile关键字用于告诉编译器不要优化对某些变量(可以由线程或中断例程修改)的访问之外，它还可以用于删除一些编译器错误——是的，它可以是——。

例如，我在一个嵌入式平台上工作，编译器对变量的值做出了一些错误的假设。如果代码没有优化，程序可以正常运行。通过优化(这是非常必要的，因为这是一个关键的例程)，代码将无法正常工作。唯一的解决方案(虽然不是很正确)是将“错误的”变量声明为volatile。

我曾经在调试构建中使用过它，当编译器坚持要优化掉一个变量时，我希望在逐步执行代码时能够看到这个变量。

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).

我应该提醒你的一个用法是，在信号处理函数中，如果你想访问/修改一个全局变量(例如，将其标记为exit = true)，你必须将该变量声明为'volatile'。

In the early days of C, compilers would interpret all actions that read and write lvalues as memory operations, to be performed in the same sequence as the reads and writes appeared in the code. Efficiency could be greatly improved in many cases if compilers were given a certain amount of freedom to re-order and consolidate operations, but there was a problem with this. Even though operations were often specified in a certain order merely because it was necessary to specify them in some order, and thus the programmer picked one of many equally-good alternatives, that wasn't always the case. Sometimes it would be important that certain operations occur in a particular sequence.

Exactly which details of sequencing are important will vary depending upon the target platform and application field. Rather than provide particularly detailed control, the Standard opted for a simple model: if a sequence of accesses are done with lvalues that are not qualified volatile, a compiler may reorder and consolidate them as it sees fit. If an action is done with a volatile-qualified lvalue, a quality implementation should offer whatever additional ordering guarantees might be required by code targeting its intended platform and application field, without requiring that programmers use non-standard syntax.

不幸的是，许多编译器并没有确定程序员需要什么样的保证，而是选择提供标准规定的最低限度的保证。这使得volatile远没有它应有的用处。例如，在gcc或clang上，一个程序员需要实现一个基本的“移交互斥量”(一个已经获得并释放互斥量的任务直到另一个任务释放互斥量后才会再次释放互斥量)，他必须做以下四件事中的一件:

将互斥量的获取和释放放在编译器不能内联的函数中，并且不能应用整个程序优化。 将互斥锁保护的所有对象限定为volatile——如果所有访问都发生在获得互斥锁之后和释放互斥锁之前，那么就不应该这样做。 使用优化级别0来强制编译器生成代码，就像所有非限定寄存器的对象都是volatile一样。 使用特定于gcc的指令。

相比之下，当使用更适合系统编程的高质量编译器时，例如icc，人们将有另一种选择:

确保在每个需要获取或释放的地方执行volatile-qualified write。

获取一个基本的“传递互斥量”需要一个volatile读取(看看它是否准备好了)，并且不应该需要一个volatile写入(另一方在它被交还之前不会试图重新获取它)，但是必须执行一个毫无意义的volatile写入仍然比gcc或clang下可用的任何选项都要好。

其他答案已经提到避免一些优化，以便:

使用内存映射寄存器(或MMIO) 写入设备驱动程序 允许更容易的程序调试 使浮点计算更具确定性

当你需要一个值看起来来自外部，不可预测，避免编译器基于已知值进行优化时，当一个结果实际上没有使用，但你需要计算它时，或者当它被使用，但你想要计算它几次作为基准时，你需要计算在精确的点开始和结束时，Volatile是必不可少的。

volatile read类似于输入操作(如scanf或cin的使用):该值似乎来自程序外部，因此任何依赖于该值的计算都需要在它之后开始。

volatile写类似于输出操作(如printf或cout的使用):值似乎是在程序外部传递的，因此如果值依赖于计算，则需要在之前完成。

因此，一对易变的读/写可以用来控制基准测试，使时间测量变得有意义。

如果没有volatile，你的计算可以在编译器之前启动，因为没有什么会阻止计算与时间测量等函数的重新排序。