Whenever possible, I try to ensure the validation of my program early. I can move some verifications from runtime to compile-time. As such, I will find some issues when I compile the program instead of while running it.

With good tests, I will still find issues earlier than the user. But with human error, some unpleasant cases can reach the user if tests do not cover them. And they might not always be easy to spot.

Context

Take the following situation:

• • A third-party library provides an std::array with some data (integers).
  • I convert this data into another std::array that my application owns (instances of a struct).

It’s as simple as it sounds.

#include <algorithm>
#include <array>
#include <cassert>
#include <numeric>

namespace lib {
using A = std::array<int, 9>;

inline A fetch()
{
    A a;
    std::iota(a.begin(), a.end(), 1);
    return a;
}
}  // namespace lib

namespace app {
struct S {
    int i = 0;
    S() = default;
    explicit S(int v) noexcept : i{v} {}
};
inline bool operator==(int i, S s) noexcept { return i == s.i; }

using B = std::array<S, 9>;

inline B convert(const lib::A& a)
{
    B b;
    std::transform(a.cbegin(), a.cend(), b.begin(), [](int i) noexcept { return S{i}; });

    return b;
}
}  // namespace app

int main()
{
    const auto a = lib::fetch();
    const auto b = app::convert(a);

    assert(std::equal(a.cbegin(), a.cend(), b.cbegin()));
}

The issue that might not be too easy to spot, especially if the code is more complicated, is that the third-party library could change the array’s size.

My code would still compile. And of course, given that I have a test (represented here by the assert), it would fail. But I would not know why it failed until I debug the code. And if I don’t have a test, I’m not covered.

Specifically for my code, if the third-party library’s array would get larger than my app’s array, I would get an undefined behavior because I would try to copy data beyond my array’s bounds.

Moreover, a change like that in the third-party library might be something really important for me and it should scream in my face. Continue reading Compile-time validation

I take some things for granted and say I will get into details later when needed. Which sometimes can be sane because some subjects don’t have an ending, they get me from one detail to another. And there are situations where I stop at a particular level. It’s the case for static_cast. To simply put it, it turns out I don’t know how it really works.

Because the name includes “static”, I wrongfully assumed it knows, at compile-time, what it’s going to happen to a runtime value. And that it just forcefully and trustfully copies information from one source to another, converting from one type to another. It believes I know what I’m doing and obeys as much as it can.

Another reason for not bothering too much with details is that I never used a static cast for other types than numeric ones. And this simplifies things.

Not long ago I learned that a static cast can have runtime overhead. It was a big surprise until I was reminded of the user-defined conversions and until, of course, I read the documentation.

The simple case

For basic types such as int and float, it’s easier to reason.

float f;
auto i = static_cast<int>(f);

would get to:

movss           xmm0, DWORD PTR [rbp-4]
cvttss2si       eax, xmm0
mov             DWORD PTR [rbp-8], eax

This means:

• • copy the f variable from the stack into the xmm0 register,
  • convert from float to integer into the eax register,
  • copy the result onto the stack in the i variable.

User-defined conversions

When one of the operands is of a user type (eg. a struct), I add a function to intermediate such a conversion because the compiler does not understand how I want the conversion to be performed. Continue reading static_cast runtime overhead

This is a very short follow-up to the solution for removing duplicate code based on C++ policy-based design.

As I mentioned in that article, there are times when you need something more simple. And I can think of two other solutions.

The starting point is the duplication of lines 15 and 27:

#include <cassert>

struct Object {
    int prop_1{};
    int prop_2{};
    int prop_3{};
};

void set_object_properties_1(Object& object)
{
    if (object.prop_1 == 0) {
        object.prop_1 = 1;
    }

    object.prop_2 = object.prop_1 * 4;  // duplicate

    object.prop_3 = object.prop_2 * 5 + object.prop_1 * 2;
}

void set_object_properties_2(Object& object)
{
    if (object.prop_1 == 0) {
        object.prop_1 = 3;
    }
    object.prop_1 *= 2;

    object.prop_2 = object.prop_1 * 4;  // duplicate

    object.prop_3 = object.prop_1 * object.prop_2;
}

int main()
{
    Object object_1{};
    set_object_properties_1(object_1);
    assert(object_1.prop_1 == 1);
    assert(object_1.prop_2 == 4);
    assert(object_1.prop_3 == 22);

    Object object_2{};
    set_object_properties_2(object_2);
    assert(object_2.prop_1 == 6);
    assert(object_2.prop_2 == 24);
    assert(object_2.prop_3 == 144);
}

Continue reading Removing duplicate code