Memory barriers must be applied where necessary on many architectures, and
there is no standard or portable way to generate them. There is no excuse for a
compiler to require both volatile AND memory barriers, because there's no
excuse for a compiler to reorder memory access around its own memory barrier
construct. (Usually either a compiler builtin such as Compaq C/C++ "__MB()" or
an asm("mb") "pseudocall".) The standard and portable way to ensure memory
consistency is to rely on the POSIX memory model, which is based solely on
specific POSIX API calls rather than expensive and inappropriately defined
language keywords or nonportable hardware instructions. A system or compiler
that does not provide the proper memory model (without volatile) with proper
use of the portable POSIX API calls does not conform to POSIX, and cannot be
considered for serious threading work. Volatile is irrelevant.

Entirely aside from the language issues, my point was simply that "volatile",
and especially its association with threaded programming, has been an extremely
confusing issue for many people. Simply using them together is going to cause
even more confusion. The illusory promise of volatile will lead novices into
trouble.

In contradiction to your absurd statement that "writing multithread programs
becomes impossible" without volatile, the intended C and C++ semantics
associated with volatile are neither useful nor sufficient for threaded code.
And it is WITH volatile, not without, that "the compiler wastes vast
optimization opportunities", especially as the expense of meeting the volatile
"contract" is of no benefit to threaded code.