Why is a point-to-volatile pointer, like "volatile int * p", useful?

`volatile` is to tell the compiler not to optimize the reference, so that every read/write does not use the value stored in register but does a real memory access. I can understand it is useful for some ordinary variable, but don't understand how `volatile` affects a pointer.

volatile int *p = some_addr;
int a = *p; // CPU always has to load the address, then does a memory access anyway, right?

What is the difference if it has been declared as `int *p = some_addr`?

This code `volatile int *p = some_addr` declares a pointer to a `volatile int`. The pointer itself is not `volatile`.

In the unlikely event that you needed the pointer to be volatile as well as the int, you would need to use:

volatile int * volatile p;

I can't think of a situation where you would need to use that.

On the usefulness of volatile:
This is needed, if you need to check memory, which is modified by hardware like a serial interface controller. It has its application in the world of embedded systems, where you work very close to the hardware without any OS in-between.

A pointer of the form

volatile int* p;

is a pointer to an `int` that the compiler will treat as `volatile`. This means that the compiler will assume that it is possible for the variable that `p` is pointing at to have changed even if there is nothing in the source code to suggest that this might occur. For example, if I set `p` to point to a regular integer, then every time I read or write `*p` , the compiler is aware that the value may have changed unexpectedly.

There is one more use case for a `volatile int*`: If you declare an `int` as `volatile`, then you should not point at it with a regular `int*`. For example, this is a bad idea:

volatile int myVolatileInt;
int* ptr = &myVolatileInt; // Bad idea!

The reason for this is that the C compiler no longer remembers that the variable pointed at by `ptr` is `volatile`, so it might cache the value of `*ptr` in a register incorrectly. In fact, in C++, the above code is an error. Instead, you should write:

volatile int myVolatileInt;
volatile int* ptr = &myVolatileInt; // Much better!

Now, the compiler remembers that `ptr` points at a `volatile int`, so it won't (or shouldn't!) try to optimize accesses through `*ptr`.

One last detail - the pointer you discussed is a pointer to a `volatile int`. You can also do this:

int* volatile ptr;

This says that the pointer *itself* is `volatile`, which means that the compiler shouldn't try to cache the pointer in memory or try to optimize the pointer value because the pointer itself might get reassigned by something else (hardware, etc.) You can combine these together if you'd like to get this beast:

volatile int* volatile ptr;

This says that both the pointer and the pointee could get changed unexpectedly.The compiler can't optimize the pointer itself, and it can't optimize what's being pointed at.