Home » Blog » Categories » Articles & Books

Articles & Books

VoidParam Puzzle -- Alex Marmer

By Alex Marmer | Jun 3, 2016 12:28 AM | Tags: None

Alex Marmer has openend a puzzle.

VoidParam Puzzle 

From the article:

How to handle 'void' parameter passed in a macro. He provides a solution as well.

In case that you have other or better solutions, don't hesitate to use the comment option on this site.

Quick Q: If nullptr_t isn't a keyword, why are char16_t and char32_t?

By Adrien Hamelin | Jun 1, 2016 02:41 PM | Tags: c++11 advanced

Quick A: To allow overloading with the underlying types of uint_least16_t and uint_least32_t

Recently on SO:

If nullptr_t isn't a keyword, why are char16_t and char32_t?

The proposal itself explains why: to allow overloading with the underlying types of uint_least16_t and uint_least32_t. If they were typedefed this wouldn't be possible.

Define char16_t to be a distinct new type, that has the same size and representation as uint_least16_t. Likewise, define char32_t to be a distinct new type, that has the same size and representation as uint_least32_t.

[N1040 defined char16_t and char32_t as typedefs to uint_least16_t and uint_least32_t, which make overloading on these characters impossible.]

As for why they aren't in the std namespace, this is for compatibility with the original C proposal. C++ prohibits the C definitions from appearing in its own version of <cuchar>

[c.strings] / 3

The headers shall not define the types char16_t, char32_t, and wchar_t (2.11).
The types then would need to be global typedefs, which carries its own set of issues such as 
typedef decltype(u'q') char16_t;

namespace foo {
  typedef int char16_t;
}

The reason for std::nullptr_t not being a keyword can be found in the question you linked

We do not expect to see much direct use of nullptr_t in real programs.
making nullptr_t the real exception here.

 

C++ for Games: Performance, Allocations and Data Locality -- Sergey Ignatchenko

By Blog Staff | May 31, 2016 11:39 AM | Tags: None

BB_part094_BookChapter013a_v1-640x427.pngWell-illustrated, and well-illustrated, gems:

C++ for Games: Performance, Allocations and Data Locality

by Sergey Ignatchenko

From the draft chapter:

One further thing to keep in mind with regards to 90-10 (or 70-30) rule is that even if only performance of 10% of the code matters, the rest of the code can still affect performance of critical 10% in a Pretty Bad Way :-( ...

ignatchenko-1.PNG

C++ Performance: Common Wisdoms and Common "Wisdoms" -- Sergey Ignatchenko

By Blog Staff | May 30, 2016 05:31 PM | Tags: None

Sergey is writing a book and making draft chapters available for review. Here are sBB_part095_BookChapter013b_v1-640x427.pngSome tried-and-true, well-illustrated and entertaining tips:

C++ Performance: Common Wisdoms and Common "Wisdoms"

by Sergey Ignatchenko

From the draft chapter intro:

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. — Niels Bohr

There are quite a few common wisdoms when it comes to C++ and games. As it always the case when facing a bunch of common wisdoms, some of them have their merits, some are obsolete-beyond-belief, and some are just taken from a very different context and are not really applicable. Let’s take a look at the most popular ones...

Quick Q: Is final used for optimization in C++?

By Adrien Hamelin | May 27, 2016 02:37 PM | Tags: performance intermediate

Quick A: Possibly.

Recently on SO:

Is final used for optimization in C++?

It can be.

An optimisation along these lines would relate to the "de-virtualization" of the virtual calls. This is not always immediately affected by the final of the class nor method. Albeit they offer help to determine this, the normal rules of the virtual functions and class hierarchy apply.

If the compiler can determine that at runtime a particular method will always be called (e.g. given the OP example, with an automatic object), it could apply such an optimisation anyway, irrespective of whether the method is final or not.

Optimisations fall under the as-if rule, that allow the compiler to apply any transformation so long as the observable behaviour is as-if the original code had been executed.

CppCon 2015 What's New in Visual C++ 2015 and Future Directions--Steve Carroll • Ayman Shoukry

By Adrien Hamelin | May 27, 2016 02:30 PM | Tags: community advanced

Have you registered for CppCon 2016 in September? Don’t delay – Early Bird registration is open now.

While we wait for this year’s event, we’re featuring videos of some of the 100+ talks from CppCon 2015 for you to enjoy. Here is today’s feature:

What's New in Visual C++ 2015 and Future Directions

by Steve Carroll • Ayman Shoukry

(watch on YouTube) (watch on Channel 9)

Summary of the talk:

In this talk, we'll discuss new features, optimizations, and scenarios in Visual Studio 2015. We'll cover new backend optimizations, improved build throughput, new productivity and diagnostics features, and give a detailed update on our conformance progress, as well as talk about cool new c++1y features that we are shipping from await to modules.

Visual Studio isn't just for Microsoft platform developers. We'll also demonstrate our latest cross platform C++ development features for Android and iOS. We'll also give a sneak peak at our work on combining the Clang frontend with our existing backend to bring Clang support for Windows to Visual Studio.

Quick Q: was raw-pointer constructor of shared_ptr a mistake?

By Adrien Hamelin | May 25, 2016 01:48 PM | Tags: c++11 basics

Quick A: No, its usage is well defined.

Recently on SO:

was raw-pointer constructor of shared_ptr a mistake?

In hindsight, given make_shared, would shared_ptr have a constructor that takes a raw pointer had it been introduced with C++11?
What if you don't control the allocation of the object? What if you need to use a custom deleter? What if you need list-initialization instead of parens?

None of these cases is handled by make_shared.

Additionally, if you're using weak_ptr, a shared_ptr allocated via make_shared won't free any memory until all the weak_ptrs are destroyed as well. So even if you have a normal shared pointer where none of the above apply, it's possible that you may still prefer the raw pointer constructor.

Yet another situation would be if your type provides overloads for operator new and operator delete. These may make it ill-suited for make_shared, since those overloads will not be called - and presumably they exist for a reason.

Quick Q: What makes moving objects faster than copying?

By Adrien Hamelin | May 24, 2016 12:35 PM | Tags: None

Quick A: it allows to steal ressources instead of creating new ones.

Recently on SO:

What makes moving objects faster than copying?

It's all about implementation. Consider simple string class:

class my_string {
  char* ptr;
  size_t capacity;
  size_t length;
};

Semantics of copy requires us to make a full copy of string including allocation of another array in dynamic memory and copying *ptr contents there, which is expensive.

Semantics of move requires us only to transfer the value of pointer itself to new object without duplicating contents of string.

If, of course, class doesn't use dynamic memory or system resources, then there is no difference between moving and copying in terms of performance.

Quick Q: Why assigning a value is calling the implicit constructor?

By Adrien Hamelin | May 24, 2016 12:30 PM | Tags: basics

Quick A: Because the default assignement operator knows only the type of your object, which it can get be calling the constructor.

Recently on SO:

What is the point of calling constructor with implicit conversion instead of assignment operator after an object is initalized?

There is no implicit CBox::operator=(double), so box = 2.0; has to create a temporary CBox object. It's equivalent to box = CBox(2.0);.

Making your constructor explicit disallows the implicit conversion from double to CBox, so no appropriate assignment operator exists, and you get a compile error.