C++ - What does volatile represent when applied to a method?

Question

If I have a C++ method declaration as follows:

class A
{
public:
   double getPrice() volatile;
};

1. What does volatile represent here?
2. What could it be used for?

You might be interested in this Dr Dobbs article by Andrei Alexandrescu. I was :)

Edit: That article was written a while back and now it seems that the community has moved on. Herb Sutter has this to say this. Thanks Iain (and Herb!)

mlimber points out that Andrei had a follow up article here where he continues to advocate the use of volatile correctness as a valuable tool for detecting race conditions on systems supporting POSIX-like mutexes.

Answer 1

You're probably familiar with const methods and const-correctness (cf. "Item 15 - Use const proactively" in C++ Coding Standards by Sutter and Alexandrescu), and volatile works in similar but slightly different ways to yield what might be called "volatile-correctness."

Like const, volatile is a type modifier. When attached to a member function as in your example, either modifier (or both!) mean that the object on which the method is called must have or be convertible to that type.

Consider:

struct A
{
  void f();
  void cf() const;
  void vf() volatile;
  void cvf() const volatile;
  // ...
};

void foo( A& a, const A& ca, volatile A& va, const volatile A& cva )
{
  a.f();    // Ok
  a.cf();   // Ok: Can convert non-const    obj to const    obj
  a.vf();   // Ok: Can convert non-volatile obj to volatile obj
  a.cvf();  // Ok: Can convert non-cv       obj to cv       obj

  ca.f();   // Error: can't call non-const method on const obj
  ca.cf();  // Ok
  ca.vf();  // Error: can't call non-const method on const obj
  ca.cvf(); // Ok: Can convert

  va.f();   // Error: can't call non-volatile method on volatile obj
  va.cf();  // Error: can't call non-volatile method on volatile obj
  va.vf();  // Ok
  va.cvf(); // Ok: Can convert

  cva.f();   // Error: can't call non-cv method on cv obj
  cva.cf();  // Error: can't call non-cv method on cv obj
  cva.vf();  // Error: can't call non-cv method on cv obj
  cva.cvf(); // Ok
}

Note these are compile-time errors, not run-time errors, and that is where it's potential usefulness comes in.

Const-correctness prevents unintentional errors at compile-time as well as making code "easier to understand, track, and reason about" (Sutter and Alexandrescu). Volatile-correctness can function similarly but is much less used (note that const_cast in C++ can cast away const, volatile, or const volatile, but rather than calling it cv_cast or similar, it's named after const alone because it is far more commonly used for casting away just const).

For instance, in "volatile - Multithreaded Programmer's Best Friend", Andrei Alexandrescu gives some examples of how this can be used to have the compiler automatically detect race conditions in multithreaded code. It has plenty of explanation about how type modifiers work, too, but see also his follow-up comments in his subsequent column.

---

Update:

Note that C++11 changes the meaning of const. Thus sayeth the Sutter: "const now really does mean 'read-only, or safe to read concurrently'—either truly physically/bitwise const, or internally synchronized so that any actual writes are synchronized with any possible concurrent const accesses so the callers can’t tell the difference."

Elsewhere, he notes that while C++11 has added concurrency primitives, volatile is still not one of them: "C++ volatile variables (which have no analog in languages like C# and Java) are always beyond the scope of this and any other article about the memory model and synchronization. That’s because C++ volatile variables aren’t about threads or communication at all and don’t interact with those things. Rather, a C++ volatile variable should be viewed as portal into a different universe beyond the language — a memory location that by definition does not obey the language’s memory model because that memory location is accessed by hardware (e.g., written to by a daughter card), have more than one address, or is otherwise 'strange' and beyond the language. So C++ volatile variables are universally an exception to every guideline about synchronization because are always inherently “racy” and unsynchronizable using the normal tools (mutexes, atomics, etc.) and more generally exist outside all normal of the language and compiler including that they generally cannot be optimized by the compiler.... For more discussion, see my article 'volatile vs. volatile.'"