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 633421
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T20:11:02+00:00 2026-05-13T20:11:02+00:00

I presume that the following will give me 10 volatile ints volatile int foo[10];

  • 0

I presume that the following will give me 10 volatile ints

volatile int foo[10];

However, I don’t think the following will do the same thing.

volatile int* foo;
foo = malloc(sizeof(int)*10);

Please correct me if I am wrong about this and how I can have a volatile array of items using malloc.

Thanks.

  • 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
    2026-05-13T20:11:03+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 8:11 pm
    int volatile * foo;
    

    read from right to left "foo is a pointer to a volatile int"

    so whatever int you access through foo, the int will be volatile.

    P.S.

    int * volatile foo; // "foo is a volatile pointer to an int"
    

    !=

    volatile int * foo; // foo is a pointer to an int, volatile
    

    Meaning foo is volatile. The second case is really just a leftover of the general right-to-left rule.
    The lesson to be learned is get in the habit of using

    char const * foo;
    

    instead of the more common

    const char * foo;
    

    If you want more complicated things like "pointer to function returning pointer to int" to make any sense.

    P.S., and this is a biggy (and the main reason I’m adding an answer):

    I note that you included "multithreading" as a tag. Do you realize that volatile does little/nothing of good with respect to multithreading?

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

Let's presume that I have string like '=&?/;#+%' to be a part of my
Though internal, I presumed that it is safe to use ConcurrentIdentityWeakKeyHashMap generally. However, the
I have the following image in a CMS that I want to hide, I
I have seen it discussed somewhere that the following code results in obj being
The DataContext.GetTable() method will return an object of type: System.Data.Linq.Table By doing that, I
I have a table that includes the following column: mytable <- data.frame(beta_0 = c(1,2,3)
Let us presume I have the following object defined: var myObj = function(){ this.hello
When using the following example code, the tv_nsec value, I presume is looping round
I am writing an assembly function to be called from C that will call
I presumed that a pthread_t remains constant - for a given thread - for

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.