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

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • 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 1002183
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 16, 20262026-05-16T07:47:41+00:00 2026-05-16T07:47:41+00:00

I find myself wanting to write a routine that will operate on both volatile

  • 0

I find myself wanting to write a routine that will operate on both volatile and non-volatile memory blocks. Something along the lines of:

void byte_swap (unsigned * block_start, size_t amount) {
    for (unsigned * lp = block_start; lp < block_start + amount; lp++) {
        *lp = htonl(*lp);
    }
    memcpy (block_start, some_other_address, amount);
}

(Not my real code, but an example).

The problem I have is that if I try to use a pointer to a volatile memory area, the compiler complains about losing the volatile qualifier. I could cast away volatile, but it seems like that might make the routine itself unsafe if it tries to cache the changes (or previous reads), would it not?

The other option would be to make the routine itself take unsigned volatile *, but that would require me to convert all the non-volatile callers to volatile pointers.

I suppose a third option would be to make two exact duplicates of the routine, differing only in whether the volatile keyword appears. That sucks.

Is there a Right Way to handle this, and if so what is it?

As a mostly related question, are predefined routines (specifically memcpy) safe to use with volatile pointers? What bad things could happen to me if I did? It seems kinda silly to have to reroll any memory-related library routine myself simply because it doesn’t use volatile void pointers.

  • 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. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-16T07:47:42+00:00Added an answer on May 16, 2026 at 7:47 am

    You only need to use volatile when you are dealing with memory mapped IO, that is where successive reads or writes to the same memory address can and should return different values. If you are writing to what amounts to simply shared memory, a simple formal handover mechanism which allocates access the either the CPU or the hardware device (such as a DMA controller) should suffice.

    Also be aware that performing operations on non-cached memory or, even worse, a memory mapped device will be really slow. You may well be far better off copying to normal uncached memory before performing any byte swapping operations. When copying large amounts of data to memory mapped IO, DMA can safe you a large number of CPU cycles.

    volatile tends to act as a barrier to compiler optimization and should be avoided where necessary.

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

Sidebar

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.