volatile关键字的作用是什么?在c++中它能解决什么问题?

就我而言,我从来没有明知肚明地需要它。


当前回答

所有的答案都很好。但在此之上,我想分享一个例子。

下面是一个小的cpp程序:

#include <iostream>

int x;

int main(){
    char buf[50];
    x = 8;

    if(x == 8)
        printf("x is 8\n");
    else
        sprintf(buf, "x is not 8\n");

    x=1000;
    while(x > 5)
        x--;
    return 0;
}

现在,让我们生成上述代码的程序集(我将只粘贴与此相关的程序集的部分):

生成程序集的命令:

g++ -S -O3 -c -fverbose-asm -Wa,-adhln assembly.cpp

会众是这样。

main:
.LFB1594:
    subq    $40, %rsp    #,
    .seh_stackalloc 40
    .seh_endprologue
 # assembly.cpp:5: int main(){
    call    __main   #
 # assembly.cpp:10:         printf("x is 8\n");
    leaq    .LC0(%rip), %rcx     #,
 # assembly.cpp:7:     x = 8;
    movl    $8, x(%rip)  #, x
 # assembly.cpp:10:         printf("x is 8\n");
    call    _ZL6printfPKcz.constprop.0   #
 # assembly.cpp:18: }
    xorl    %eax, %eax   #
    movl    $5, x(%rip)  #, x
    addq    $40, %rsp    #,
    ret 
    .seh_endproc
    .p2align 4,,15
    .def    _GLOBAL__sub_I_x;   .scl    3;  .type   32; .endef
    .seh_proc   _GLOBAL__sub_I_x

您可以在程序集中看到,没有为sprintf生成程序集代码,因为编译器假定x不会在程序之外发生变化。while循环也是如此。由于优化,循环被完全删除,因为编译器认为它是无用的代码,因此直接将5分配给x(参见movl $5, x(%rip))。

如果外部进程/硬件将x的值更改为x = 8之间的某个值,则会出现问题;和if(x == 8).我们希望else块可以工作,但不幸的是编译器已经删除了这部分。

现在,为了解决这个问题,在assembly。cpp中,让我们改变int x;到volatile int x;并快速查看生成的汇编代码:

main:
.LFB1594:
    subq    $104, %rsp   #,
    .seh_stackalloc 104
    .seh_endprologue
 # assembly.cpp:5: int main(){
    call    __main   #
 # assembly.cpp:7:     x = 8;
    movl    $8, x(%rip)  #, x
 # assembly.cpp:9:     if(x == 8)
    movl    x(%rip), %eax    # x, x.1_1
 # assembly.cpp:9:     if(x == 8)
    cmpl    $8, %eax     #, x.1_1
    je  .L11     #,
 # assembly.cpp:12:         sprintf(buf, "x is not 8\n");
    leaq    32(%rsp), %rcx   #, tmp93
    leaq    .LC0(%rip), %rdx     #,
    call    _ZL7sprintfPcPKcz.constprop.0    #
.L7:
 # assembly.cpp:14:     x=1000;
    movl    $1000, x(%rip)   #, x
 # assembly.cpp:15:     while(x > 5)
    movl    x(%rip), %eax    # x, x.3_15
    cmpl    $5, %eax     #, x.3_15
    jle .L8  #,
    .p2align 4,,10
.L9:
 # assembly.cpp:16:         x--;
    movl    x(%rip), %eax    # x, x.4_3
    subl    $1, %eax     #, _4
    movl    %eax, x(%rip)    # _4, x
 # assembly.cpp:15:     while(x > 5)
    movl    x(%rip), %eax    # x, x.3_2
    cmpl    $5, %eax     #, x.3_2
    jg  .L9  #,
.L8:
 # assembly.cpp:18: }
    xorl    %eax, %eax   #
    addq    $104, %rsp   #,
    ret 
.L11:
 # assembly.cpp:10:         printf("x is 8\n");
    leaq    .LC1(%rip), %rcx     #,
    call    _ZL6printfPKcz.constprop.1   #
    jmp .L7  #
    .seh_endproc
    .p2align 4,,15
    .def    _GLOBAL__sub_I_x;   .scl    3;  .type   32; .endef
    .seh_proc   _GLOBAL__sub_I_x

在这里,您可以看到生成了sprintf、printf和while循环的程序集代码。这样做的好处是,如果某个外部程序或硬件更改了x变量,那么将执行sprintf部分的代码。类似地,while循环也可以用于busy waiting now。

其他回答

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。

在开发嵌入式系统或设备驱动程序时,需要使用Volatile,因为在这些驱动程序中需要读写内存映射的硬件设备。特定设备寄存器的内容随时都可能改变,所以你需要volatile关键字来确保这样的访问不会被编译器优化。

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。

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

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).