C++17 constexpr everything, or as much as the compiler can(solarianprogrammer.com)
solarianprogrammer.com
C++17 constexpr everything, or as much as the compiler can
https://solarianprogrammer.com/2017/12/27/cpp-17-constexpr-everything-as-much-as-the-compiler-can/
14 comments
How does D deal with cases where the computation might be plaform dependent (like floating point arth. or bit kung-fu+ endianess) ? An more generally, what happens when a computation "can" be done at compile time , but "needs" (for correctness or ressource ) done at runtime ?
The same way constant folding is done in any compiler. You try to emulate the math on the target.
D is quite specific what computations occur at compile time and what at runtime. It's very much up to the user in how he sets it up.
D is quite specific what computations occur at compile time and what at runtime. It's very much up to the user in how he sets it up.
D doesn't run code at compile time as an optimisation. It only runs code at compile time in certain constructs like variable declarations or static if statements. If you need your code to run at runtime simply stick it in your code where it needs to run.
Maybe 'constexpr' has been added rather to express the intent (for example, for library development)?
You can annotate D functions as 'pure', which would have that effect, but purity is used for other reasons.
Evaluating functions at compile time has another wrinkle in D - it is path dependent:
Evaluating functions at compile time has another wrinkle in D - it is path dependent:
int square(int x) {
if (x < 100)
return x * x;
printf("oops\n");
return 0;
}
const int x = square(3); // works
const int y = square(100); // fails at compile time
I think this might waste resources for some transient results. Sometimes that computation time required for evaluation is negligible, and the result might require more memory than "the function call".
It's been in D for a decade, and has been extremely successful, to the extent of becoming a critical feature.
An early example was someone wrote a ray tracer in D that ran and generated output completely at compile time.
A more useful example is D's regex package can build the engine at compile time, thereby emitting a custom engine for the regex, instead of at runtime.
An early example was someone wrote a ray tracer in D that ran and generated output completely at compile time.
A more useful example is D's regex package can build the engine at compile time, thereby emitting a custom engine for the regex, instead of at runtime.
While I think it's awesome D can do that (and am a bit jealous the languages I use regularly don't have any real sort of constexpr) what does that _really_ provide?
It would seem the startup cost of building a regexp engine would really only matter for, say, command-line programs (i.e., short-lived, run-once programs). For a web application the overhead would be negligible.
Again, don't get me wrong, but it just seems to be more of a "neat!" thing than a "we _need_ this for reasons X, Y, and Z."
It would seem the startup cost of building a regexp engine would really only matter for, say, command-line programs (i.e., short-lived, run-once programs). For a web application the overhead would be negligible.
Again, don't get me wrong, but it just seems to be more of a "neat!" thing than a "we _need_ this for reasons X, Y, and Z."
Most regex engines build interpreter bytecode at runtime, and then execute the bytecode with an interpreter. Being able to generate the engine at compile time means the runtime engine is running custom compiled code.
So, what it _really_ provides is runtime performance.
So, what it _really_ provides is runtime performance.
What about values that aren't needed at compile time, but can be so optimized.
Running code at compile time in D is not an automatic optimization. Only code in certain constructs are ran at compile time, for example function calls in variable declarations or static if statements. Generally it's not something you even need to think about. This runs foo() at compile time:
int bar=foo();
int bar;
void main(){
bar=foo();
}D still has optimization passes.
>In conclusion, at the time of this writing, you need to inspect the generated code of your compiler, if you want to be sure that something is really calculated at compile time.
I don't get this. Why? Doesn't making a variable constexpr ensure it is a compile time value, or it will fail to compile?
I don't get this. Why? Doesn't making a variable constexpr ensure it is a compile time value, or it will fail to compile?
> Doesn't making a variable constexpr ensure it is a compile time value
It ensures that the variable could be evaluated at compile time, where "could be evaluated at compile time" means "conforms to the rules set forth in the C++ standard". Whether or not it is computed at compile time is dependent on the compiler.
It ensures that the variable could be evaluated at compile time, where "could be evaluated at compile time" means "conforms to the rules set forth in the C++ standard". Whether or not it is computed at compile time is dependent on the compiler.
> It ensures that the variable could be evaluated at compile time
Why couldn't a variable without constexpr be evaluated at compile-time? Nobody ever explains this.
Why couldn't a variable without constexpr be evaluated at compile-time? Nobody ever explains this.
The option was discussed during standardization. It is expected that some corners of the language will never be available at compile time, for example I/O. So you need a keyword to declare a function to be callable a compile time, otherwise its constexpressness would depend on its implementation details and wouldn't be possible to check it in isolation.
It might not be a great reason (some code becomes a keyword soup with all the pointless boilerplate, we really need a DWIM[1] keyword).
[1] Declare With Implicit Meaning of course.
It might not be a great reason (some code becomes a keyword soup with all the pointless boilerplate, we really need a DWIM[1] keyword).
[1] Declare With Implicit Meaning of course.
(EDIT to my last comment since I can't actually edit it -- I'm not sure if I misinterpreted your comment earlier or if you updated yours, but this is my updated reply.)
> It is expected that some corners of the language will never be available at compile time, for example I/O. So you need a keyword to declare a function to be callable a compile time, otherwise its constexpressness would depend on its implementation details and wouldn't be possible to check it in isolation.
Don't compilers already require the implementation of a function to be there in order to evaluate the code at compile-time? And don't they already have to verify that it can indeed be called at compile-time? I don't really get what the constexpr flag helps the compiler. It could just assume everything is constexpr implicitly unless proven otherwise.
> It is expected that some corners of the language will never be available at compile time, for example I/O. So you need a keyword to declare a function to be callable a compile time, otherwise its constexpressness would depend on its implementation details and wouldn't be possible to check it in isolation.
Don't compilers already require the implementation of a function to be there in order to evaluate the code at compile-time? And don't they already have to verify that it can indeed be called at compile-time? I don't really get what the constexpr flag helps the compiler. It could just assume everything is constexpr implicitly unless proven otherwise.
constexpr isn't just a claim about today - it's a promise for the future. That is, the compiler can certainly notice that a function can be evaluated at compile time, and indeed optimizers will often perform enough inlining and constant propagation to boil down function calls to constant values in the binary. The constexpr keyword serves two purposes: it claims that the implementation is usable in constant expressions today (therefore allowing compilers to diagnose (i.e. emit compiler errors for) things that can't be done at compiletime, like I/O), and it promises that the implementation won't change in the future to be hostile to compile-time evaluation. This promise is important - otherwise, users could take a dependency on a function's current behavior (e.g. by using its result as an array bound, or as a template argument), and then they would be broken by implementation changes in the future that prohibited compile-time evaluation.
I see, so you're saying it's a verifiable promise by the function writer that it can be evaluated at compile-time?
Meaning its entire purpose is to just be an easier version of a compile-time unit-test like static_assert(f(1) == 2)?
Meaning its entire purpose is to just be an easier version of a compile-time unit-test like static_assert(f(1) == 2)?
Beautifully put. This is what's missing from D's approach.
> It is expected that some corners of the language will never be available at compile time, for example I/O.
So you're saying functions that have side-effects like I/O can actually perform those operations at compile-time if marked with constexpr?
So you're saying functions that have side-effects like I/O can actually perform those operations at compile-time if marked with constexpr?
No: the purpose of constexpr is that the compiler would issue an error if a constexpr function contains such side-effects.
No? Wouldn't it do that with a static_assert invoking the function too?
No sure I get the question: static_assert can only invoke constexpr functions, and constexpr functions can only call themselves other constexpr functions. Since IO functions are not constexpr, you can't call them there.
There's precedent in C++ for keywords that give the compiler hints it doesn't necessarily promise to act on: inline.
Shameless pedant kneejerk: 'inline' has semantics in additional to the optimization-hint. e.g. inlined functions won't trigger multiple-definition link-errors, even if they're left as ordinary functions in the executable.
Happy to be corrected (EDIT: indeed, I stand corrected! see replies below), but I don't think the C++ spec says anything about 'inline' encouraging the compiler to inline the compiled code?
'auto' would've been an example, but that also got removed, because they realized it was useless. I don't get how constexpr is any different.
'auto' would've been an example, but that also got removed, because they realized it was useless. I don't get how constexpr is any different.
I don't know my way around the spec, but Wikipedia is pretty unequivocal:
"... it serves as a compiler directive that suggests (but does not require) that the compiler substitute the body of the function inline by performing inline expansion, i.e. by inserting the function code at the address of each function call, thereby saving the overhead of a function call."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_function
"... it serves as a compiler directive that suggests (but does not require) that the compiler substitute the body of the function inline by performing inline expansion, i.e. by inserting the function code at the address of each function call, thereby saving the overhead of a function call."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_function
Thanks for this! I was very skeptical, but you made me look through every single mention of the word 'inline' in the spec, and you are indeed correct. :) Here is the relevant quote:
> [7.1.2] [dcl.fct.spec] A function declaration with an inline specifier declares an inline function. The inline specifier indicates to the implementation that inline substitution of the function body at the point of call is to be preferred to the usual function call mechanism. An implementation is not required to perform this inline substitution at the point of call; however, even if this inline substitution is omitted, the other rules for inline functions defined by shall still be respected
> [7.1.2] [dcl.fct.spec] A function declaration with an inline specifier declares an inline function. The inline specifier indicates to the implementation that inline substitution of the function body at the point of call is to be preferred to the usual function call mechanism. An implementation is not required to perform this inline substitution at the point of call; however, even if this inline substitution is omitted, the other rules for inline functions defined by shall still be respected
At first I was going to say that it's similar to asm.js - that it enabled an optimization but also could fall back to just running the code. However in trying to find references to back up my answer, I found a different explanation of constexpr which changed my own understanding.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38879475/why-cant-conste...
Quoting Ben Voigt: "What constexpr does is provide guarantees on what data-flow analysis a compliant compiler is required to do to detect1 compile-time-computable expressions, and also allow the programmer to express that intent so that they get a diagnostic if they accidentally do something that cannot be precomputed."
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38879475/why-cant-conste...
Quoting Ben Voigt: "What constexpr does is provide guarantees on what data-flow analysis a compliant compiler is required to do to detect1 compile-time-computable expressions, and also allow the programmer to express that intent so that they get a diagnostic if they accidentally do something that cannot be precomputed."
Apparently constexpr is like "inline". Just as the inline keyword doesn't actually guarantee that the compiler will inline a function, so constexpr doesn't require the compiler to precompute something, but rather just gives a hint to the compiler that you'd like it to if it can.
Literally the second example shows a failing case for Clang 5 where GCC is able to statically compute it at compile time.
That sounds like a bug in Clang?
It may not be a bug. The computation of Fibbonacci(10) requires a stack of ten frames. It may be that Clang has a limit on the depth of the stack for pre-compiled code.
For integral values you can use a little hack to ensure compile-time evaluation:
namespace detail {
template<class T, T val>
constexpr T eval() { return val; }
};
#define FORCE_COMPILE_TIME(x) detail::eval<decltype(x), x>()This is exactly why I don't like C++: it is just too complicated, and it encourages to write complicated code, usually opaque boilerplate template hacks for what would seem a simple concept. This is difficult to read, review, understand, and hence error-prone. No, not only error-prone, but bug-encouraging.
BTW, you can also enforce compile time evaluation like this:
BTW, you can also enforce compile time evaluation like this:
enum { aux1 = X };
use(aux1);
Interestingly D actually used `enum` to define compile time values (as opposed to `alias` which is used for types). If you want a compile time value you can do this:
enum aux1 = X;There might be a case where you expected the compiler to constexpr something but it didn't. I can imagine cases where a heavy function getting called more than once, because you had expected it to be pre-computed.
Oh look another flag that has several caveats and corner cases and works only half the times you think it works, while increasing compiler complexity
Here's a better idea, if you really need a compile time value in your program you calculate it yourself (or just run it at program startup and cache the value).
Here's a better idea, if you really need a compile time value in your program you calculate it yourself (or just run it at program startup and cache the value).
Or the compiler could behave intuitively, but that's hard in C++ due to all of the past decisions that need to be supported.
All of this is easy in Common Lisp, which includes interactive compile-time debugging. You can use #., EVAL-WHEN, LOAD-TIME-VALUE, and other things to control evaluation time, and use the same, usual, interactive debugger that you use for runtime code, without any extra infrastructure or scaffolding.
In C++, to debug failed constexpr’s, often, you have to make it a non-constexpr and debug at runtime.
In C++, to debug failed constexpr’s, often, you have to make it a non-constexpr and debug at runtime.
or you can just use a C++ repl like Cling ?
What the C++ repl does with constexpr functions would be unrelated to the code generated by the actual C++ compiler.
since Cling is just Clang in a REPL, it seems like it would be good idea
I’m not sure that’s even close to equivalent in execution-time debugging, and doesn’t work well with large, existing code bases with crafted build steps. These are transparent, non-issues in Common Lisp.
What about debugging? If the code to generate the data is large and complex, how do you debug it when it only runs at compile time? Is the solution to start with two programs like the author and then merge them? That still seems like a maintainability issue.
A constexpr function can be used with a non-constexpr argument in which case the compiler will keep the function in the compiled code and you can use it as a normal function.
In the context of the linked article, take the first example and modify it, by reading a number at runtime with std::cin and call factorial or fibonacci with this number as an argument.
Something like this https://godbolt.org/g/CT5M6f
In the context of the linked article, take the first example and modify it, by reading a number at runtime with std::cin and call factorial or fibonacci with this number as an argument.
Something like this https://godbolt.org/g/CT5M6f
In D which has CTFE support since ages, you'd debug such functions by invoking them at runtime.
https://tour.dlang.org/tour/en/gems/compile-time-function-ev...
There are also tools to print values at compile time.
A compile time debugger for the CTFE interpreter is on our extended feature list for the current interpreter rewrite, but it's less of a priority atm.
A compile time debugger for the CTFE interpreter is on our extended feature list for the current interpreter rewrite, but it's less of a priority atm.
Sadly it's fairly easy to write a function that fails at compile time but runs fine at runtime. For those situations there's at least `pragma(msg,`
[deleted]
> ...how do you debug it when it only runs at compile time?
I prefer to unit test my constexpr logic with a bunch of static assertions in a cpp file. You could put them in with the code being debugged, but having them separate keeps the header files lighter weight with no real downside assuming you have CI or something set up.
I prefer to unit test my constexpr logic with a bunch of static assertions in a cpp file. You could put them in with the code being debugged, but having them separate keeps the header files lighter weight with no real downside assuming you have CI or something set up.
> If the code to generate the data is large and complex, how do you debug it when it only runs at compile time?
that's up to the compiler actually. For instance, in debug mode visual studio skips constexpr and does everything at runtime (which sucks if you depend on stuff being constexpr).
that's up to the compiler actually. For instance, in debug mode visual studio skips constexpr and does everything at runtime (which sucks if you depend on stuff being constexpr).
You could use something like #ifdef NDEBUG #define MY_CONSTEXPR #else #define MY_CONSTEXPR constexpr so when you are running the debug build, everything is debuggable.
That makes the compiler not complain when your constexpr isn't a valid constexpr.
Until you make release
After 3 months of development all I have to do is make release and ...
If you guys are going three days without testing a release build (let alone three months), then you probably have bigger issues to work through than what constexpr is doing...
Man, meanwhile, D has compile-time function evaluation. D's compiler is really awesome. Most of the time, no special syntax is to evaluate things at compile time (perhaps just a "static" keyword here or there) and the rules are much simpler than C++'s.
https://tour.dlang.org/tour/en/gems/compile-time-function-ev...
https://tour.dlang.org/tour/en/gems/compile-time-function-ev...
Constexpr everything can cause issues. Constexpr is a big part of a function interface. After you have applied it, you can never add logging etc.
If you use a general meta layer preprocessor such as MyDef, you may be able to construct macros that comes from evaluations of code in any languages (instead of restricted in eg. C++ with rather complicated compiler mechanics)
A constexpr is a constant that is evaluated from a code at compile time, which is essentially just macros. Right?
A general preprocessor that just do language agnostic code manipulations are not difficult but rather useful. Much complicated syntax sugar I see in the recent language development become unnecessary if a general preprocessor is in place (where syntactic sugar belong). I wonder why it is often not used.
A constexpr is a constant that is evaluated from a code at compile time, which is essentially just macros. Right?
A general preprocessor that just do language agnostic code manipulations are not difficult but rather useful. Much complicated syntax sugar I see in the recent language development become unnecessary if a general preprocessor is in place (where syntactic sugar belong). I wonder why it is often not used.
> A constexpr is a constant that is evaluated from a code at compile time, [...]
It's rather a constant expression, which is quite a bit more than a mere constant.
> [...] which is essentially just macros. Right?
Macros are basically just text replacement. You can't write a macro and expect most compilers to execute the expressions and code inside the macro at compile-time. Some compilers may still to do that, but it's not very common for more complicated stuff. With constexpr you get a guarantee that the expression can be evaluated at compile-time and it gives quite a good hint to the optimizer to spend more time optimizing that portion of the code.
It's rather a constant expression, which is quite a bit more than a mere constant.
> [...] which is essentially just macros. Right?
Macros are basically just text replacement. You can't write a macro and expect most compilers to execute the expressions and code inside the macro at compile-time. Some compilers may still to do that, but it's not very common for more complicated stuff. With constexpr you get a guarantee that the expression can be evaluated at compile-time and it gives quite a good hint to the optimizer to spend more time optimizing that portion of the code.
With a macro, you get guarantee of compile time evaluation, as well as compile time independent literal syntax double check. And you can do better than hint. You can double check the results explicitly. Since it's compile time evaluation, optimization is out of context.
> a general meta layer preprocessor such as MyDef
I did not even know such a thing existed. Thank you!
I did not even know such a thing existed. Thank you!
I didn't find any, so I rolled my own 10 years ago. Most of its features are suited toward very limited users. E.g. it doesn't really support macro evaluation from arbitrary language, only from Perl currently (but general for any target language). However,to support macro evaluation from arbitrary language seems trivial. It'll be just like gcc pulling different compiler together.
I am already a big fan of constexpr-ing everything that doesn't run away or make the compiler cry for our embedded application.
Yes, we are building a substantial embedded system with (a constrained subset of; no heap, but some templates for example) C++ 11. Heretical, I understand.
Yes, we are building a substantial embedded system with (a constrained subset of; no heap, but some templates for example) C++ 11. Heretical, I understand.
In the last ~five years I've converted all my embedded software development to C++11, even projects on small microcontrollers (32kb flash, 8kb RAM). There are features I don't use but it's hard to imagine going back to C at this point.
On the contrary, I've gone back to plain C for most projects and it's been a real relief after using C++11/14 extensively. So much accidental complexity just disappears.
The compile times are much better, too. Can't wait to get a Threadripper CPU which should push the build even closer to feeling instant.
The compile times are much better, too. Can't wait to get a Threadripper CPU which should push the build even closer to feeling instant.
I'm not sure this is really necessary. gcc and Apple's clang optimize the factorial code without "constexpr" and the fibonacci code might be an extreme case avoided by reasonable defaults for the numerous optimization parameters that can be adjusted:
max-inline-recursive-depth
max-inline-recursive-depth-auto
Specifies the maximum recursion depth used for recursive inlining.
For functions declared inline, --param max-inline-recursive-depth is taken into
account. For functions not declared inline, recursive inlining happens only when
-finline-functions (included in -O3) is enabled and --param
max-inline-recursive-depth-auto is used. The default value is 8.You should watch the talk that's mentioned in the article. They demo a constexpr json parser and a constexpr regex engine.
I tried to watch the more interesting parts, it just doesn't seem like a useful approach to me to try to get the compiler to do this work at every compilation instead of the traditional approach of doing it once by generating C(++) code/structures from text/json data in my build. Especially with the "cognitive cost" and debugging issues involved.
Exactly. This technique will be high on my list of things to try the next time I find myself complaining that my compiler is too fast.
Yet another C++ innovation that solves a problem that no one actually has.
Yet another C++ innovation that solves a problem that no one actually has.
Fair enough. I assumed you didn't consider the more complex use-cases because you mentioned compilers already doing this for small functions.
Although ordinary functions can be evaluated at compile time without the constexpr annotation, only constexpr functions will raise an error if it _can't_ be evaluated at compile time (irrespective of if the compile thinks it should be). it's a judgement call for when explicit intent > implicit side-effects.
This is probably why factorial(5) is statically eval'ed and fibonacci(10) is not.
Genuine question: Is there anything protecting us from an entirely new class of compiler bugs where the constexpr code and the compiled code behave differently? Is it at all possible?
> Is it at all possible?
Of course it is possible. Just consider all the registers, memory locations changed during the execution of such functions. Such side effects can affect behaviour of other code in the presence of compiler bugs.
Of course it is possible. Just consider all the registers, memory locations changed during the execution of such functions. Such side effects can affect behaviour of other code in the presence of compiler bugs.
I personally do not understand the buzz around constexpr etc. All the real buziness is happening at runtime anyway and compilers already optimize code quite decently. The extra maintenance burden just doesn't pays off.
I think you should review his premise: he is using constexpr to eliminate a separate exe, a data file, and code that loads and reads the data file at runtime. His maintenance burden goes down.
It's like 'const' itself -- it's a tool for producing better error messages, not better final executables.
C++ is never just C++. The build system for any C++ program includes both macro language and some form of make and/or make replacement. Explicitly generating tables at compile time and linking is bog standard at this point.
Write a table generator program, have output create a table, splice in the order into make and/or make replacement.
Sure it's three extra steps, but it's small steps that can be debugged. It also doesn't require any advanced compiler tricks that may or may not actually run at compile.
Write a table generator program, have output create a table, splice in the order into make and/or make replacement.
Sure it's three extra steps, but it's small steps that can be debugged. It also doesn't require any advanced compiler tricks that may or may not actually run at compile.
Why do you say writing auxiliary programs and tools to integrate the data is "standard practice", and a simple and straightforward language feature are "advanced compiler tricks"?
Because 'generate a table by having make run a simple program' is something people have done for decades with C, C++ and other languages, whereas constexpr is a new feature that's only just appeared in the C++ language spec and apparently silently degrades to "not actually at compile time".
> C++ is never just C++. The build system for any C++ program includes both macro language and some form of make and/or make replacement.
Your comment makes no sense, and shows some confusion. C++ is a programming language. That's what's being discussed here. You, on the other hand, are talking about build systems and how sofrware projects may be configured by some people. That is besides the point and actually completely misses the very topic being discussed. It's entirely irrelevant if you can fill a whole header with #define or write a convoluted macro with m4 to write it for you. That's not how a programming language like C++ implements compile-time constant expressions. That's acvomplished with C++'s support for constexpr.
Your comment makes no sense, and shows some confusion. C++ is a programming language. That's what's being discussed here. You, on the other hand, are talking about build systems and how sofrware projects may be configured by some people. That is besides the point and actually completely misses the very topic being discussed. It's entirely irrelevant if you can fill a whole header with #define or write a convoluted macro with m4 to write it for you. That's not how a programming language like C++ implements compile-time constant expressions. That's acvomplished with C++'s support for constexpr.
Is there a C++ compiler that doesn't include 'make' and/or a 'make' replacement? There are linkage rules and even a few keywords just to allow linkage with code not generated by the compiler. It's very much part of the language.
'extern const int *table;'
Having a compile-time program create table would guarantee that it's created at compile time. Having a constexpr does not guarantee it would be done at compile-time, it silently degrades to run-time. If verifying requires an assembly listing, I see it less useful than the currently available tools.
'extern const int *table;'
Having a compile-time program create table would guarantee that it's created at compile time. Having a constexpr does not guarantee it would be done at compile-time, it silently degrades to run-time. If verifying requires an assembly listing, I see it less useful than the currently available tools.
> Is there a C++ compiler that doesn't include 'make' and/or a 'make' replacement?
Yes, all of them.
Because 'make' and/or 'make' replacements have absolutely zero to do with a compiler. It is a build automation tool that essentially determines which target needs to be built based on which preceding targets have been altered. This has zero to do with what a compiler does.
Yes, all of them.
Because 'make' and/or 'make' replacements have absolutely zero to do with a compiler. It is a build automation tool that essentially determines which target needs to be built based on which preceding targets have been altered. This has zero to do with what a compiler does.
And have all embedded engineers raging because you just made cross compilation an order of magnitude harder.
Embedded engineer here. Care to explain why ? Code generation is widely used, at least in automotive. Comparison of hard-to-read and hard-to-debug advanced template/constexpr machinery vs code generated by standalone tool that is easy to read and easy to debug would not be taken seriously
Both approaches have their problems, but resolving to compile-time constants with simple expressions is NOT "hard-to-debug" if done with care. As ever, tools can be abused, and real life can astonish.
Example: for the credit dept of a now-ex investment bank many moons ago we had a set of blessed (including with the correct correlations) random numbers pre-computed and baked in via code generation.
I discovered that I could actually generate numbers faster at run-time with highly-tuned code because of the high cost of paging in the large-precompiled numbers array across the network.
Example: for the credit dept of a now-ex investment bank many moons ago we had a set of blessed (including with the correct correlations) random numbers pre-computed and baked in via code generation.
I discovered that I could actually generate numbers faster at run-time with highly-tuned code because of the high cost of paging in the large-precompiled numbers array across the network.
If the generator is itself in C++, then it requires to have 2 full toolchains to bootstrap it. Then if the developer have a great idea such as "hey, I got access to all my code! Let's reuse it" then you have to build the package twice. Since everytime you do that you increase the number of packages to be built on the host toolchain, after a while they start to bleed into each other (due to buggy build systems in the dependencies) and when you execute the final binary, you get "wrong file format" errors on the target (or worst, sizeof() mismatch at runtime)...
I am not saying there is no solution to these problem, of course there is. All I said is that it makes bootstrapping a system much harder than it would otherwise have been with constexpr. Many devs avoid those issues because dependencies rarely change and once you fixed all issues, it will most likely stay stable.
Mature and "made for embedded" projects tend to be better since cross compiling have been taken into account in each steps of the pipeline. But if you start pulling random code from the internet, expect the worst.
I am not saying there is no solution to these problem, of course there is. All I said is that it makes bootstrapping a system much harder than it would otherwise have been with constexpr. Many devs avoid those issues because dependencies rarely change and once you fixed all issues, it will most likely stay stable.
Mature and "made for embedded" projects tend to be better since cross compiling have been taken into account in each steps of the pipeline. But if you start pulling random code from the internet, expect the worst.
Code generators at our place are most often written in java (xtext, xtend), rarely in other interpreted languages, almost never in C++. Of course, there are grey areas when the price of using another tool, integrating it into build system(which itself sometimes is non-trivial task, if done properly) has to be carefully considered against obtained pros.
The secret there, of course, is not to write the table generation program in C++. (-:
In such circumstances, I find myself writing the table generator in shell script, REXX, or some such convenient language on the host system.
In such circumstances, I find myself writing the table generator in shell script, REXX, or some such convenient language on the host system.
Sounds like opening a can of worms ... some developers will definitely opt for using a language which has "convenient" properties -- since the generator code is not running on the target platform, it has different constraints. And then one day, another dev team will face the task of porting rexx/perl/python/ocaml/you-name-it on a platform which has no capacities for that, or has no required depenedencies available, or neither.
You are making the error of thinking that one can only use one language, or that using the right language for a job is a bad thing; and you are making the error of thinking that build platforms did or do lack the capacity for generating source like this. These are platforms that have the capacity to run a C++ compiler; they have more than enough capacity to run tools like (say) od and sed.
I have yet to understand what information 'constexpr' conveys to the compiler that makes it necessary or useful.
Certain things, when used in a routine, make computation impossible at compile time. If the routine is marked with 'constexpr', the compiler will verify that.
Couldn't it already do the exact same thing without constexpr? (And shouldn't it have already done that when optimizing? In fact for simpler expressions compilers already do this, right?) How does specifying constexpr help?
But I think you nailed it -- the compiler doesn't have to signal optimization "failures" back to the developer, but it has to for the constexpr case. It is not that the constexpr routine can be used at compile time, it is that it must be useable at compile time.
> But I think you nailed it -- the compiler doesn't have to signal optimization "failures" back to the developer, but it has to for the constexpr case.
Is this true? Where do you see Clang emit a diagnostic in the example in the given article? (https://godbolt.org/g/HKcPFT)
Is this true? Where do you see Clang emit a diagnostic in the example in the given article? (https://godbolt.org/g/HKcPFT)
You seem to be right -- at least "no diagnostics required" is mentioned a few times in $10.1.5 of N4700. To be honest, my comment is not from the article in the example, but from my own experience, and that is mostly with GCC 7.2.
Like "const", it's so the compiler can produce better feedback for the programmer, not better executables. constexpr will raise an error if a function _can't_ be evaluated at compile-time, just as const functions will raise an error if they do any non-const stuff.
> Like "const", it's so the compiler can produce better feedback for the programmer, not better executables. constexpr will raise an error if a function _can't_ be evaluated at compile-time, just as const functions will raise an error if they do any non-const stuff.
But how does it lead to better feedback? constexpr is purely suggesting an optimization that the compiler was already allowed to do anyway, and which it can still refuse to perform even with the keyword.
If the programmer's goal is to ensure compile-time evaluation is guaranteed, constexpr won't cut it, since the compiler can (and compilers currently do) silently fall back to run-time evaluation.
Alternatively, if the programmer's goal is to ensure compile-time evaluation is possible, constexpr still doesn't provide any value, since that's already obvious from the compiler analyzing the body of the function and noticing, say, that fopen() is getting called (and the compiler already has to do this anyway).
The situation is very critically different from const, too. Adding 'const' to a method that was previously non-const, even when it is legal and compiles perfectly fine, can entirely change the semantics of the code, and hence you want that decision to be explicit, not implicit. This isn't the case with constexpr.
But how does it lead to better feedback? constexpr is purely suggesting an optimization that the compiler was already allowed to do anyway, and which it can still refuse to perform even with the keyword.
If the programmer's goal is to ensure compile-time evaluation is guaranteed, constexpr won't cut it, since the compiler can (and compilers currently do) silently fall back to run-time evaluation.
Alternatively, if the programmer's goal is to ensure compile-time evaluation is possible, constexpr still doesn't provide any value, since that's already obvious from the compiler analyzing the body of the function and noticing, say, that fopen() is getting called (and the compiler already has to do this anyway).
The situation is very critically different from const, too. Adding 'const' to a method that was previously non-const, even when it is legal and compiles perfectly fine, can entirely change the semantics of the code, and hence you want that decision to be explicit, not implicit. This isn't the case with constexpr.
ad hoc partial evaluation ?
With explicit purity marks.
I don't see how the C++ community will benefit from those, since the type of code that benefits is normally done in other languages. But I am certainly less creative than a community.
I don't see how the C++ community will benefit from those, since the type of code that benefits is normally done in other languages. But I am certainly less creative than a community.
If a value is needed at compile time, and the function cannot be evaluated at compiler time (i.e. it relies on things like global variables not known at compile time) then a compilation error is issued.
There isn't any ambiguity about whether it is evaluated at runtime or compile time - there is no "fall back" to run time if it can't be done at compile time.