在我看来，你不应该对volatile期望太高。为了说明这一点，看看尼尔斯·派彭布林克(Nils Pipenbrinck)的高票数回答中的例子。

我想说，他的例子并不适用于volatile。Volatile只用于: 阻止编译器进行有用和理想的优化。这与线程安全、原子访问甚至内存顺序无关。

在这个例子中:

    void SendCommand (volatile MyHardwareGadget * gadget, int command, int data)
    {
      // wait while the gadget is busy:
      while (gadget->isbusy)
      {
        // do nothing here.
      }
      // set data first:
      gadget->data    = data;
      // writing the command starts the action:
      gadget->command = command;
    }

gadget->data = gadget->command = command之前的数据仅由编译器在编译后的代码中保证。在运行时，处理器仍然可能根据处理器架构对数据和命令分配进行重新排序。硬件可能会得到错误的数据(假设gadget映射到硬件I/O)。数据和命令分配之间需要内存屏障。

volatile在C语言中实际上是为了不自动缓存变量的值而存在的。它会告诉编译器不要缓存这个变量的值。因此，每次遇到给定的volatile变量时，它都会生成代码从主存中获取它的值。之所以使用这种机制，是因为该值在任何时候都可以被操作系统或任何中断修改。所以使用volatile可以帮助我们每次都重新访问值。

volatile变量可以从编译代码的外部进行更改(例如，程序可以将volatile变量映射到内存映射寄存器)。编译器不会对处理易失性变量的代码应用某些优化——例如，它不会在不将其写入内存的情况下将其加载到寄存器。这在处理硬件寄存器时很重要。

它有两个用途。这些在嵌入式开发中特别常用。

编译器不会优化使用volatile关键字定义的变量的函数 Volatile用于访问RAM、ROM等中的精确内存位置。这通常用于控制内存映射设备，访问CPU寄存器和定位特定的内存位置。

参见程序集清单示例。 回复:在嵌入式开发中使用C“volatile”关键字

参见Andrei Alexandrescu的文章，“volatile——多线程程序员最好的朋友”

The volatile keyword was devised to prevent compiler optimizations that might render code incorrect in the presence of certain asynchronous events. For example, if you declare a primitive variable as volatile, the compiler is not permitted to cache it in a register -- a common optimization that would be disastrous if that variable were shared among multiple threads. So the general rule is, if you have variables of primitive type that must be shared among multiple threads, declare those variables volatile. But you can actually do a lot more with this keyword: you can use it to catch code that is not thread safe, and you can do so at compile time. This article shows how it is done; the solution involves a simple smart pointer that also makes it easy to serialize critical sections of code.

本文适用于C和c++。

参见Scott Meyers和Andrei Alexandrescu的文章“c++和双重检查锁定的危险”:

So when dealing with some memory locations (e.g. memory mapped ports or memory referenced by ISRs [ Interrupt Service Routines ] ), some optimizations must be suspended. volatile exists for specifying special treatment for such locations, specifically: (1) the content of a volatile variable is "unstable" (can change by means unknown to the compiler), (2) all writes to volatile data are "observable" so they must be executed religiously, and (3) all operations on volatile data are executed in the sequence in which they appear in the source code. The first two rules ensure proper reading and writing. The last one allows implementation of I/O protocols that mix input and output. This is informally what C and C++'s volatile guarantees.

在Dennis Ritchie设计的语言中，除了地址未被获取的自动对象外，对任何对象的每次访问都表现为计算对象的地址，然后在该地址上读写存储。这使得该语言非常强大，但严重限制了优化机会。

While it might have been possible to add a qualifier that would invite a compiler to assume that a particular object wouldn't be changed in weird ways, such an assumption would be appropriate for the vast majority of objects in C programs, and it would have been impractical to add a qualifier to all the objects for which such assumption would be appropriate. On the other hand, some programs need to use some objects for which such an assumption would not hold. To resolve this issue, the Standard says that compilers may assume that objects which are not declared volatile will not have their value observed or changed in ways that are outside the compiler's control, or would be outside a reasonable compiler's understanding.

Because various platforms may have different ways in which objects could be observed or modified outside a compiler's control, it is appropriate that quality compilers for those platforms should differ in their exact handling of volatile semantics. Unfortunately, because the Standard failed to suggest that quality compilers intended for low-level programming on a platform should handle volatile in a way that will recognize any and all relevant effects of a particular read/write operation on that platform, many compilers fall short of doing so in ways that make it harder to process things like background I/O in a way which is efficient but can't be broken by compiler "optimizations".