你的程序似乎工作，即使没有挥发关键字?也许这就是原因:

如前所述，volatile关键字有助于以下情况

volatile int* p = ...;  // point to some memory
while( *p!=0 ) {}  // loop until the memory becomes zero

但是，一旦调用外部函数或非内联函数，似乎几乎没有任何影响。例如:

while( *p!=0 ) { g(); }

然后无论是否使用volatile都会产生几乎相同的结果。

只要g()可以完全内联，编译器就可以看到正在发生的一切，因此可以进行优化。但是，当程序调用一个编译器看不到发生什么的地方时，编译器再做任何假设就不安全了。因此，编译器生成的代码总是直接从内存中读取。

但是要注意，当函数g()变成内联(由于显式更改或由于编译器/链接器的聪明)时，如果您忘记volatile关键字，那么您的代码可能会崩溃!

因此，我建议添加volatile关键字，即使您的程序似乎没有它也可以工作。它使意图在未来的变化方面更加清晰和强大。

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。

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。

我曾经在20世纪90年代早期开发过一个大型应用程序，其中包含使用setjmp和longjmp进行基于c语言的异常处理。volatile关键字对于那些值需要保存在作为“catch”子句的代码块中的变量是必要的，以免这些变量被存储在寄存器中并被longjmp清除。

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).

如果你正在从内存中的某个点(比如说，一个完全独立的进程/设备/任何东西)读取数据，则需要使用Volatile。

我曾经在纯c的多处理器系统中使用双端口ram。我们使用硬件管理的16位值作为信号量，以知道另一个家伙什么时候完成。基本上我们是这样做的:

void waitForSemaphore()
{
   volatile uint16_t* semPtr = WELL_KNOWN_SEM_ADDR;/*well known address to my semaphore*/
   while ((*semPtr) != IS_OK_FOR_ME_TO_PROCEED);
}

没有volatile，优化器认为循环是无用的(这家伙从不设置值!他疯了，删掉那代码吧!)，我的代码会在没有获得信号量的情况下继续运行，从而在以后造成问题。