Yes, the same problem exists in C++. But since C already introduce the keyword volatile with a different meaning (not related to threads), and C++ used they keyword in the same way, you can't use volatile in C++ like you can in Java.

Instead, you're probably better off using std::atomic<T>. It's not always the most efficient alternative, but it's simple. If this turns out to be a bottleneck, you can relax the std::memory_order used by std::atomic.

Yes, the same problem exists in C++. But since C already introduce the keyword volatile with a different meaning (not related to threads), and C++ used they keyword in the same way, you can't use volatile in C++ like you can in Java.

Instead, you're probably better off using std::atomic<T> (or boost::). It's not always the most efficient alternative, but it's simple. If this turns out to be a bottleneck, you can relax the std::memory_order used by std::atomic.

Having said that about standard C++, MSVC++ as an extension does guarantee that multiple threads can access a shared volatile variable. IIRC, all threads will eventually see the same value, and no threads will travel back in time. (That is to say, if 0 and 1 are written to a variable sequentially, no thread will ever see the sequence 1,0)