Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 149005
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 11, 20262026-05-11T09:03:33+00:00 2026-05-11T09:03:33+00:00

Consider the following: volatile uint32_t i; How do I know if gcc did or

  • 0

Consider the following:

volatile uint32_t i; 

How do I know if gcc did or did not treat i as volatile? It would be declared as such because no nearby code is going to modify it, and modification of it is likely due to some interrupt.

I am not the world’s worst assembly programmer, but I play one on TV. Can someone help me to understand how it would differ?

If you take the following stupid code:

#include <stdio.h> #include <inttypes.h>  volatile uint32_t i;  int main(void) {         if (i == 64738)                 return 0;         else                 return 1; } 

Compile it to object format and disassemble it via objdump, then do the same after removing ‘volatile’, there is no difference (according to diff). Is the volatile declaration just too close to where its checked or modified or should I just always use some atomic type when declaring something volatile? Do some optimization flags influence this?

Note, my stupid sample does not fully match my question, I realize this. I’m only trying to find out if gcc did or did not treat the variable as volatile, so I’m studying small dumps to try to find the difference.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. 2026-05-11T09:03:34+00:00Added an answer on May 11, 2026 at 9:03 am

    Many compilers in some situations don’t treat volatile the way they should. See this paper if you deal much with volatiles to avoid nasty surprises: Volatiles are Miscompiled, and What to Do about It. It also contains the pretty good description of the volatile backed with the quotations from the standard.

    To be 100% sure, and for such a simple example check out the assembly output.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 81k
  • Answers 81k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer You're getting back an enumerable of strings with no name.… May 11, 2026 at 4:30 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer I have been keeping my eye on this one: core-plot… May 11, 2026 at 4:30 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Here's an example that does what I think you're trying… May 11, 2026 at 4:30 pm

Related Questions

I have two interrupt service routines (ISR) which basically do the exact same thing
Consider the double-check idiom for lazy initialization of instance fields: // Item 71 in
Consider the following setup: A windows PC with a LAN interface and a WiFi
Consider the following ruby code test.rb: begin puts thisFunctionDoesNotExist x = 1+1 rescue Exception

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.