我的简单解释是:

在某些情况下，基于逻辑或代码，编译器会对它认为不会改变的变量进行优化。volatile关键字阻止变量被优化。

例如:

bool usb_interface_flag = 0;
while(usb_interface_flag == 0)
{
    // execute logic for the scenario where the USB isn't connected 
}

从上面的代码中，编译器可能认为usb_interface_flag被定义为0，并且在while循环中它将永远为0。优化后，编译器会一直将其视为while(true)，导致无限循环。

为了避免这种情况，我们将标志声明为volatile，我们告诉编译器这个值可能会被外部接口或程序的其他模块改变，也就是说，请不要优化它。这就是volatile的用例。

Volatile告诉编译器不要优化与Volatile变量有关的任何东西。

至少有三个常见的原因使用它，所有的情况下，变量的值可以改变，而不需要从可见代码的操作:

当您与改变值本身的硬件进行交互时 当另一个线程运行时也使用了该变量 当有一个可能改变变量值的信号处理程序时。

假设你有一小块硬件被映射到RAM的某个地方，它有两个地址:一个命令端口和一个数据端口:

typedef struct
{
  int command;
  int data;
  int isBusy;
} MyHardwareGadget;

现在你想要发送一些命令:

void SendCommand (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;
}

看起来很简单，但可能会失败，因为编译器可以随意更改数据和命令的写入顺序。这将导致我们的小工具使用之前的数据值发出命令。还可以看看busy循环中的wait。这个会被优化掉。编译器会尽量聪明，只读取一次isBusy的值，然后进入一个无限循环。这不是你想要的。

解决这个问题的方法是将指针gadget声明为volatile。这样编译器就会被强制执行你所写的内容。它不能删除内存赋值，不能在寄存器中缓存变量，也不能改变赋值的顺序

这是正确的版本:

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;
}

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。

volatile的另一个用途是信号处理程序。如果你有这样的代码:

int quit = 0;
while (!quit)
{
    /* very small loop which is completely visible to the compiler */
}

编译器可以注意到循环体没有触及quit变量，并将循环转换为while (true)循环。即使在信号处理程序上为SIGINT和SIGTERM设置了退出变量;编译器无法知道这一点。

但是，如果quit变量被声明为volatile，编译器将被迫每次加载它，因为它可以在其他地方修改。这正是你在这种情况下想要的。

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".

它不允许编译器自动改变变量的值。易失性变量用于动态使用。