October 25, Pavia, Italy
November 6-8, Berlin, Germany
November 3-8, Kona, HI, USA
By ingve | Sep 28, 2016 11:59 PM | Tags: c++14 advanced
C++ delegates were a hot topic at CppCon this year. Andreas Åkesson shows a simpler way to use them in IncludeOS.
Delegate initialization - the simpler way
By Andreas Åkesson
From the article:
After the presentation it hit me, “Why can’t we deduce the class type from the object passed as argument? Let’s make a helper function!”
By Adrien Hamelin | Sep 16, 2016 01:44 PM | Tags: performance boost advanced
Have you registered for CppCon 2016 in September? Don’t delay – Late 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:
Boost Units Library for Correct Code
by Robert Ramey
Summary of the talk:
I will give a presentation on the Boost Units library.
This library implements a zero runtime facility for performing dimensional analysis checking and automatic units conversion on C++ expressions. I have found this indispensable for coding scientific programs involving a variety of complex physical units. The documentation of the Boost Units library is totally complete and accurate, but totally inpenetrable. I had to spend way too much time figuring out how to use this. By attending this meeting, you're going to avoid this pain and just get the benefit of simpler programs that contain fewer bugs.
By Adrien Hamelin | Sep 5, 2016 01:42 PM | Tags: community advanced
Have you registered for CppCon 2016 in September? Don’t delay – 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:
Secure C++ Programming
by Gwendolyn Hunt
Summary of the talk:
Security vulnerabilities are fundamentally defects in our code. We know many of these defects stem from string processing, buffer overflows and integer underflow and overflows. These defects become security vulnerabilities when an attacker can crash an application, cause undefined behavior that leads to a Denial of Service, privilege escalation or hidden installation of rogue software.
So how do we build more secure C++ software? It starts by gaining an understanding of the basics of security vulnerabilities and how to identify them using the rich set of tools we now have available. With this foundation we can build a development culture where security considerations are pervasive and treated as important as program and algorithm correctness.
This session begins with a survey of common C/C++ string, integer and STL container issues and mitigations for these vulnerabilities. Follows with two detailed examples of vulnerabilities and how to fix their problems. Finishes with a survey of tools and references we have available today.
By Adrien Hamelin | Aug 29, 2016 01:08 PM | Tags: c++11 advanced
Following here is an advanced article about the behavior of C++ concerning copy and move operations. A more simple version is provided for a quicker and easier understanding of the best practices. The sum up is, don't declare as deleted a move constructor!
A more user friendly version
by Howard Hinnant
Episode Eleven: To Kill a Move Constructor
by Agustín "K-ballo" Bergé
From the article:
Unlike copy operations, which are provided by the compiler if not user declared, move operations can and often are suppressed such that a class might not have one. Furthermore, it is possible for a class to have a —user declared— move operation which is both defined as deleted, and at the same time ignored by overload resolution, as if it didn't exist...
By Adrien Hamelin | Aug 24, 2016 02:13 PM | Tags: efficiency advanced
Have you registered for CppCon 2016 in September? Don’t delay – 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:
`for_each_argument` explained and expanded
by Vittorio Romeo
Summary of the talk:
During January 2015, Sean Parent posted a very interesting short piece of code on Twitter. The code iteratively iterates at compile-time over any number of function arguments, forwarding them one by one to a callable object.
How does this code work? What are the possible use cases? Can we make it even more generic and useful?
My talk answers all of the questions above, using independently compiled chronologically sequential code segments that show the audience the analysis and improvement process of `for_each_argument`.
By Adrien Hamelin | Aug 22, 2016 01:44 PM | Tags: boost advanced
Have you registered for CppCon 2016 in September? Don’t delay – 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:
Racing The File System
by Niall Douglas
Summary of the talk:
Almost every programmer knows about and fears race conditions on memory where one strand of execution may concurrently update data in use by another strand of execution, leading to an inconsistent and usually dangerous inconsistent read of program state. Almost every programmer therefore is aware of mutexes, memory ordering, semaphores and the other techniques used to serialise access to memory.
Interestingly, most programmers are but vaguely aware of potential race conditions on the filing system, and as a result write code which assumes that the filing system does not suddenly change out from underneath you when you are working on it. This assumption of a static filing system introduces many potential security bugs never mind ways of crashing your program, and of course creating data loss and corruption.
This workshop will cover some of the ways in which filing system races can confound, and what portable idioms and patterns you should employ to prevent misoperation, even across networked Samba shares. Finally, an introduction of the proposed Boost library AFIO will be made which can help application developers writing filing system race free code portably.
By Adrien Hamelin | Aug 15, 2016 12:55 PM | Tags: performance advanced
Quick A: The difference is only marginal with optimizations enabled.
Recently on SO:
Efficiency of postincrement v.s. preincrement in C++
It is true - although perhaps overly strict. Pre increment doesn't necessarily introduce a data dependency - but it can.
A trivial example for exposition:
a = b++ * 2;Here, the increment can be executed in parallel with the multiplication. The operands of both the increment and the multiplication are immediately available and do not depend on the result of either operation.
Another example:
a = ++b * 2;Here, the multiplication must be executed after the increment, because one of the operands of the multiplication depends on the result of the increment.
Of course, these statements do slightly different things, so the compiler might not always be able to transform the program from one form to the other while keeping the semantics the same - which is why using the post increment might make a slight difference in performance.
A practical example, using a loop:
for(int i= 0; arr[i++];) count++; for(int i=-1; arr[++i];) count++;One might think that the latter is necessarily faster if they reason that "post-increment makes a copy" - which would have been very true in the case of non-fundamental types. However, due to the data dependency (and because int is a fundamental type with no overload function for increment operators), the former can theoretically be more efficient. Whether it is depends on the cpu architecture, and the ability of the optimizer.
For what it's worth - in a trivial program, on x86 arch, using g++ compiler with optimization enabled, the above loops had identical assembly output, so they are perfectly equivalent in that case.
Rules of thumb:
If the counter is a fundamental type and the result of increment is not used, then it makes no difference whether you use post/pre increment.
If the counter is not a fundamental type and the result of the increment is not used and optimizations are disabled, then pre increment may be more efficient. With optimizations enabled, there is no difference.
If the counter is a fundamental type and the result of increment is used, then post increment can theoretically be marginally more efficient - in some cpu architecture - in some context - using some compiler.
If the counter is a complex type and the result of the increment is used, then pre increment is typically faster than post increment. Also see R Sahu's answer regarding this case.
By Meeting C++ | Aug 3, 2016 01:15 AM | Tags: performance intermediate efficiency c++11 basics advanced
The last video from Meeting C++ 2015 is online:
Taming the Performance Beast
by Klaus Iglberger
By Adrien Hamelin | Jul 29, 2016 01:21 PM | Tags: advanced
How to synchronize between threqds or
Memory consistency made simple(ish)
by Glennan Carnie
From the article:
The C++11 memory consistency model is probably one of the most significant aspects of Modern C++; and yet probably one of the least well-understood. I think the reason is simple: it’s really difficult to understand what the problem actually is.
The memory consistency problem is a concurrency problem. That is, it’s a problem that occurs when we start writing multi-threaded code. More specifically, it’s a parallelism problem – the real subtleties occur when you have two or more processors executing code...
By Adrien Hamelin | Jul 20, 2016 02:08 PM | Tags: performance advanced
Here is a curious behaviour:
Zeroing Memory is Hard (VC++ 2015 arrays)
by Bruce Dawson
From the article:
Quick, what’s the difference between these two C/C++ definitions of initialized local variables?
char buffer[32] = { 0 }; char buffer[32] = {};One difference is that the first is legal in C and C++, whereas the second is only legal in C++.
Okay, so let’s focus our attention on C++. What do these two definitions mean?