CppCon 2026

Software development has now shifted decisively to a distributed, asynchronous paradigm, in which engineers must manage code that may be executing on parallel threads, or on a different machine. Many mainstream programming languages have adapted themselves to this new world. For example, JavaScript has promises and async/await, Python has asyncio, Rust offers zero-cost async/await with compile-time safety, and Go built goroutines and channels as first-class primitives.

C++ developers face the same challenge but have been left without a standard solution. As a result, much production code remains stuck in “callback hell,” where control flow is inverted, error handling is duplicated at every level, and common patterns like "run A and B in parallel, and then combine results" must be hand-rolled every time.

This is not simply a matter of bolting async/await onto C++. Deterministic destruction, zero-overhead abstraction, and precise control over memory and lifetimes, these very properties making C++ powerful dictate that an async framework cannot rely on a garbage collector or managed runtime to paper over complexity. It must earn its place by working with the language's ownership model, not around it.

std::execution is C++’s answer to this problem. Introduced as part of C++ 26, it solves this through composable senders: lazy, type-safe descriptions of work that can be chained, branched, and parallelized before being submitted to an execution context. Like Swift's structured concurrency, std::execution enforces structured lifetimes so that async work cannot silently outlive its scope.

This talk aims to provide application developers with an introduction to the current proposal and give them a grounding in the fundamentals that can be applied in real-world applications. We will walk through several worked examples: from simple chains to parallel fan-out with error propagation, showing side-by-side comparisons with callback-based equivalents to make the advantages more concrete and relatable.

This talk assumes no knowledge of the std::execution framework and no expertise in async programming, though practical, real-world experience will certainly help ground the examples. Attendees will leave with a working understanding of the sender/receiver model, practical patterns they can use, and a clear picture of what structured concurrency means for C++.

Floating point has a reputation for betrayal. Change the thread count, vector width, compiler flags, reduction tree, or target architecture, and the low bits can move. Parallel algorithms make this worse: the standard often specifies the operation, but not the numerical expression whose result must be reproduced. This talk asks a provocative question: what if reproducible numerics did not have to be slow?

We will show reproducible, deterministic implementations of reduce and scan that exhibit better error behavior on hostile floating-point workloads and can match or beat conventional standard-library implementations on realistic workloads. The trick is not to freeze the execution schedule. It is to specify the expression being computed, then let the implementation use SIMD, threading, blocking, tiling, and platform-specific strategies to compute that expression efficiently.

The key idea, developed through C++ standardization work such as P4016R0 and P4229R0, is reproducibility by reproducing the computation. Instead of asking the implementation to promise a particular schedule, we give the calculation a named expression. Once that expression is chosen, changing the thread count, vector width, chunking, or blocking strategy does not silently change the answer.

A reproducible scan makes this harder than reduce because it does not expose only one final value. It exposes every prefix. A reproducible final sum is not enough if the intermediate results still drift. We will show how expression and observation contracts make those prefixes reproducible without forcing the computation back into a slow sequential order.

Then we go below the algorithm layer, to the places where bits usually escape: FMA contraction, denormals, floating-point environment choices, math-library approximations, and vectorized transcendental functions. The goal is not to get the same answer by turning off the hardware. We will show reproducible vectorized primitives, including transcendental functions, running at speeds comparable to established vector math libraries while preserving a cross-platform numerical contract.

Finally, we put the whole stack under stress: a heterogeneous numerical pipeline across x86-64, Apple Silicon, and CUDA. The data is deliberately hostile, with high cancellation rates and fragile intermediate states. The aim is not to pass friendly benchmark cases, but to reproduce the specified computation, including the same intermediate failures, not just the same final answer, bit for bit, across CPUs, GPUs, and toolchains.

Getting a project approved, or killed, often has less to do with technical merit than with who actually holds the keys and what they need to hear. This talk draws on real case studies from library design fights, cross-functional infrastructure rewrites, and a couple of notable failures to show practical techniques: how to find the real decision-maker, how to break expert deadlock with a position paper, and how to build toward an audacious goal through incremental wins and a well timed crisis.

Some of the most expensive C++ bugs are not caused by obscure language features. Instead, they emerge from code that looks reasonable: shared ownership that quietly extends lifetimes, singletons that become invisible dependencies, and performance-driven decisions that harden into architecture.

This talk examines these common design-level failure patterns in large-scale C++ systems. We cover three concrete design shifts:

Lifetimes: Shifting from shared ownership to explicit lifetime boundaries. Coupling: Shifting from implicit global coupling to injected dependencies. Interfaces: Replacing permissive APIs with constrained interfaces using std::span, std::optional, std::variant, and strong types.

Each shift is presented with the failure pattern it addresses, the solution, and the design rule it yields. Attendees will leave with practical heuristics for designing systems that are easier to reason about, test, and evolve: all grounded in real-world failures and the redesigns that fixed them.

In the C++ ecosystem, we have powerful tools for understanding our programs before, during, and after they run. But compiler warnings, clang-tidy, cppcheck, sanitizers, debuggers, profilers, and coverage tools all answer different questions, and using them well starts with knowing which question you are asking.

This talk introduces code analysis from first principles. We will compare static techniques such as compiler diagnostics, linting, and include analysis with runtime techniques such as sanitizers, coverage instrumentation, and profiling. We will also briefly connect these tools to the direction of modern C++, including C++26 contracts and standard library hardening, where some assumptions that used to live only in comments, documentation, or debug modes become part of the program's checkable structure. Through small C++ examples, we will see what each category of tool can reveal, what it cannot prove, and how the tools complement each other.

Attendees will leave with a practical mental model for choosing the right analysis tool for the task at hand, interpreting its output, introducing analysis into an existing C++ codebase, and writing code that is easier for both humans and tools to understand.

The architecture of legacy compilers presents limitations for modern software development. As codebases scale, developers face increased compilation times. While language complexity is often cited, key architectural bottlenecks include pointer-chasing across deeply nested ASTs (cache misses), single-threaded type resolution, and significant thread-lock contention (RwLock) during parallel semantic analysis. What happens when we discard the Abstract Syntax Tree entirely and apply strict Data-Oriented Design to the compiler itself?

In this session, we will explore the internal architecture of the Vx compiler frontend—a heterogeneous systems programming language to safely maximize utilization of available CPU cores. We will dissect how to translate complex, tree-like program semantics into flat, contiguous arrays of 256-bit bit-packed Global Identifiers (GIDs).

By stepping away from traditional recursive tree-walking and object-oriented compiler design, attendees will learn how to implement high-throughput parallel pipelines.

This talk is not just for language designers. The architectural patterns used to build the Vx compiler—flattening graphs into arrays, deferred identity, and lock-free synchronization boundaries—are directly applicable to any C++ developer building high-performance, multithreaded systems.

Building on the recent work of improving the quality of Sea of Thieves' codebase by upgrading from C++14 to C++20, this talk will focus on the work that has went into enabling warnings as errors on the game, and more.

Rare will discuss the motivations behind wanting to crank up the warning level, and to flick the "warnings as errors" switch after 10 years of development in their multi-million line Unreal Engine code base.

What were the challenges? How much effort did it take? Was it worth it? Did we find any bugs? Did we stop at just "/W4 /WX"? What warnings did we find the most useful? What warnings were deemed unhelpful? All of these questions and probably more will be answered throughout this session.

Memory leaks are very hard to treat. We have reliable tools like valgrind or AddressSanitizer to tell us whether or not an application has leaked memory, but current tools cannot tell us where the leak happens (they can tell us where the allocation happened,which is not the same).

I show that it is possible to run an analysis that is equivalent to running a garbage detection pass after every instruction and use that to find the actual cause of memory leaks in open source applications.

Using a garbage detection algorithm on record-and-replay recording, one can overcome the most obvious obstacle: stopping a program a program after every instruction or running garbage detection algorithms is very slow, but we can effectively run a bisection search on the recorded timeline to avoid having to evaluate after every instruction.

The goal is attribution to source code. Are we limited to reporting the instruction that overwrites the last reference to allocated memory or can we actually diagnose a specific error for a concrete function?

Was generating lines of code / upping the commit count the major impediment to delivering stable production ready software?

AI-assisted development has lowered the barrier to churn out code, helped engineers move faster in unfamiliar codebases, and made legacy systems easier to approach. however increased code output does not automatically mean better delivery of more reliable code.

In this talk, we will look at some of the emerging problems that are now becoming evident with AI ***amplifying existing weaknesses** such as code duplication, larger pull requests and the temptation to accept plausible generated changes without sufficient scrutiny . AI does not remove the need for engineering judgment. It removes the friction that used to slow down code creation

We will explore practical lines of defense to effectively reinforce long-term codebase health including stronger pull request descriptions, shared reviewer responsibility, review checklists, and metrics

The goal is not to reject AI. The goal is to ensure that AI improves engineering delivery rather than accelerating technical debt.

Building embedded systems wastes time on infrastructure instead of features. Before running application logic, developers lose hours bootstrapping init systems, wiring services, debugging startup failures, and fighting tooling never designed for constrained or early-boot environments. AEMBER is a developer-first PID1 (init system) that eliminates this overhead by providing a modern C++ runtime for process supervision, container orchestration, and service management - letting you focus on your application, not your plumbing.

This talk demonstrates how C++23 enables robust embedded systems without sacrificing performance. We'll explore std::expected for exception-free error handling, if consteval for compile-time optimization paths, and deducing this for zero-overhead policy classes. You'll see how monadic operations compose system calls into clean pipelines, and how modern C++ features build type-safe APIs for namespaces, cgroups, and process management.

Starting from main(), we'll trace AEMBER's architecture: how components compose, how errors propagate through std::expected chains, and how C++23 patterns enable embedded systems to be both safe and fast. We'll wrap up with a live demo showing AEMBER managing containers and services in real-time. You'll leave with concrete techniques for building maintainable embedded infrastructure using cutting-edge C++.

Modern coding agents are incredible, but they still struggle with the kind of large, unstructured codebases that are common in C++. There are several techniques and tools that can make them perform much better. Here we show examples and demos of how to get your agent to work better with complex code. The focus is on providing an overview on current techniques and how we’ve found they work best. - Skills, memory and MCP - these have all been hyped hard, we’ll sort through where they are actually useful. - All agents (Claude, Copilot, Codex, Gemini) support these - some better than others. - What a skill is and what it isn’t - How to use persistent memory - Why MCP servers are still needed (but not always) - Context engineering. - Context management keeps changing - we’ve got autocompaction and 1M token windows now, why should we care anymore? - When to “manage” your agent’s context window and when it’s a bad idea - How to understand where context is being spent. - How and why to use subagents - these are almost always available but the capabilities in different frontends are exposed in different ways. - Spec Oriented Development: buzzword, euphemism for vibe coding or the future of programming? - What is it? - What tools exist? Covering options such as SpecKit, Kiro, etc. - Working in parallel with agent teams! - How to get started without having to learn anything (almost)! - Runtime context. - How to give your agent the best possible feedback path so you can stop micromanaging it and leave it to complete longer, more complex tasks. - Techniques including testing, CI integration and recording-based technology

Every C++ developer runs their build system dozens of times a day, yet few think about what it actually computes. Underneath every cmake --build or ninja invocation lies a directed acyclic graph, a DAG of dependencies that determines what gets rebuilt, in what order, and how much parallelism is available. When builds are slow, when incremental rebuilds trigger more work than expected, or when CI bottlenecks in surprising places, the root cause is almost always a structural property of this graph. Most developers never look at it.

This talk makes the build graph visible and actionable. Through curated examples, we will visualize dependency graphs and expose the common pathologies: overly connected "hub" headers that invalidate half the build when touched, deep critical paths that starve parallelism even on a 128-core machine, and accidental edges introduced by includes that no one questioned. These are not just build performance issues: they are architectural issues wearing a different hat. Your build graph is the ground truth of your codebase's structure, whether or not it matches the diagram in your team's documentation.

Armed with this mental model, we will walk through practical techniques for reshaping the graph: measuring critical path length from .ninja_log , identifying high-fan-in nodes, breaking costly edges with forward declarations and interface segregation, and using graph analysis as an automated architectural fitness function in CI. Worked examples will show concrete before-and-after measurements. You will leave with a new way of seeing your codebase, not as files in folders, but as a graph you can visualize, measure, and deliberately reshape.