Guaranteed read from volatile variable

**iMalc** · 08-15-2011

Oh so it is the same as const. Well I guess I learnt something today.

**tabstop** · 08-15-2011

Originally Posted by grumpy

Quite the opposite, actually. The volatile keyword tells the compiler that the variable may change as a result of something invisible to the compiler, and that the compiler needs to care about the changes that occur. If code has multiple reads, and the compiler can see nothing that changes the value, then "volatile" tells the compiler it cannot omit reads.

To answer the original question though, volatile (like const) is always an attribute of the thing immediately to its left in an expression, unless it is on the left, in which case it refers to the right.

So

Code:

volatile int *ptr = 0xsomeaddress;

guarantees that *ptr (if it is accessed) will always dereference 0xsomeaddress. It is equivalent to

Code:

int volatile *ptr = 0xsomeaddress;

If you care about ptr itself being changed by something invisible to the compiler, then you need to do

Code:

volatile int * volatile ptr = 0xsomeaddress;

(noting that the first usage of volatile can be either before or after the int keyword).

But in this case, that's exactly what we want, isn't it? We have a pointer-to-volatile, and we are dereferencing the pointer; therefore we are accessing the volatile object that is being pointed to. And accessing a volatile object is exactly the thing that can't be omitted.

**Codeplug** · 08-15-2011

The second article in post #3 has a section:
>> 3. Global variables accessed by multiple tasks within a multi-threaded application
which is completely false and incorrect - for reasons grumpy has already mentioned (and the first article).
volatile does not provide memory visibility and ordering guarantees (at the hardware level) which only synchronization primitives from your threading library can provide. Thankfully, this is now in the C++0x standard, including a threading library (yay!).

>> I have always understood volatile as meaning the variable can be changed outside of program flow
I've never liked that explanation. In my mind, it only implies what really should happen instead of just stating is explicitly. That is, 'all volatile accesses must be emitted by the compiler as accesses that hit the address bus'.

It doesn't have to be the case that the "variable can change outside of the program". Writing to a memory location may turn on an LED (or some other external side-effect). By making that write a volatile access, the compiler must emit a write access on the address bus, even though it may not see any in-program side-effects for doing so (compiler doesn't know about the LED).

Another (contrived) example: Three reads from memory will turn on an LED (or set a centrifuge to its maximum RPM):

Code:

dummy = *ptr;
dummy = *ptr;
dummy = *ptr;

Most self-respecting compilers would optimize these down to 1 or 0 memory accesses. But if the accesses are volatile, then all 3 accesses must be emitted.

Another (contrived) example: Two reads and a write will turn on an LED:

Code:

a = *ptr;
b = *ptr;
*ptr = 1;

As volatile accesses, this must be emitted as 2 reads followed by a write. The compiler is not allowed to change the ordering of volatile accesses. However, the compiler is allowed to re-order all non-volatile accesses.

gg

Thread: Guaranteed read from volatile variable

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Similar Threads

Guaranteed Padding?

Guaranteed weight loss

Multimap question: is find() guaranteed to return the first matching key