Loading…
Subject: Software Quality clear filter
arrow_back View All Dates
Tuesday, September 15
 

14:00 MDT

Rule of 0,1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10?
Tuesday September 15, 2026 14:00 - 15:00 MDT
As of C++11 there are 6 special member functions that the compiler will generate for us if we don't do anything to get in the way.

But there are many other member functions, in the form of comparison operators, that we can =default explicitly

Which of these should we =default? How do we help the compiler, or stay out of its way?

How many do we need to implement? When can you trust the compiler or not?A

Presenters
avatar for Jason Turner

Jason Turner

Sole Proprietor, Jason Turner
Jason is host of the YouTube channel C++Weekly, co-host emeritus of the podcast CppCast, author of C++ Best Practices, and author of the first casual puzzle books designed to teach C++ fundamentals while having fun!
Tuesday September 15, 2026 14:00 - 15:00 MDT
_1

15:15 MDT

Mock Any Function in C++ Without Changing a Single Line of Code
Tuesday September 15, 2026 15:15 - 16:15 MDT
In many languages, you can mock almost anything. Python has unittest.mock, Java has Mockito and PowerMock, and C# has Moq. In C++, you can usually mock only what was designed to be mockable — and little else. Want to mock a free function? Wrap it in an interface. A static method? Refactor to a template. A non-virtual member? Redesign the class hierarchy. The cost is real: developers either shape production code around testing-tool constraints instead of domain needs, or they simply leave hard-to-mock code untested.

This talk introduces [LibraryName], a new C++ mocking library we developed (and plan to publish soon as open source) that can mock almost any C++ callable — free functions, static methods, non-virtual members, private members, templates, lambdas, and even extern "C" routines — without modifying the code under test. Developed and battle-tested at [CompanyName] for three years across a very large C++/C codebase, it aims to deliver a first-class testing experience for C++. Under the hood it uses runtime binary patching — replacing function prologues with redirections at test time, restoring them on scope exit — all surfaced through familiar Google Mock syntax.

We'll show [LibraryName] in action, walk through the patching mechanism, and share how to get started -- you'll walk away ready to test almost any function, regardless of how it was designed. Strong test coverage has always been essential, and AI-assisted code generation only increases the need for reliable testing backpressure. C++ deserves mocking tooling that matches.

Presenters
IE

Ilya Ermakov

Ilya Ermakov graduated from Vanderbilt University with a major in Computer Science. Since graduating, Ilya has worked at Bloomberg where he is now a Software Engineer working on Distributed Systems and C++ tooling.
BR

Brian Rudo-Hutt

Brian Rudo-Hutt is a Senior Software Engineer at Bloomberg and organizes engineering-wide initiatives to improve testing, safety, and software maturity. Brian holds Computer Science and Electrical and Computer Engineering degrees from Cornell University and lives with his family in... Read More →
RZ

Ruifeng Zhang

Bloomberg LP
Tuesday September 15, 2026 15:15 - 16:15 MDT
_6

16:45 MDT

Can I memcpy This Type Across a Boundary? Verifying Object Representation at Compile Time With C++26 Reflection
Tuesday September 15, 2026 16:45 - 17:45 MDT
Native C++ types often become the format for bytes that cross a boundary: shared-memory IPC, plugin interfaces, persistent storage, or software built for more than one ABI. At that point the type is no longer just an implementation detail; it is part of a binary contract. trivially_copyable , sizeof , and code review help, but they do not answer the two questions that matter: may this type be transported as bytes at all, and do all supported ABIs give it the same object representation?

C++26 reflection can derive that evidence from the type itself. The technique builds a compile-time layout signature from ordinary C++ types, without IDL, generated stubs, or runtime inspection. The signature records the representation facts needed for byte transfer: architecture and endianness, leaf type tokens, sizes, alignments, absolute offsets, bit-fields, and pointer-like markers. It deliberately leaves out field names and source-level meaning.

With those signatures in hand, the build can enforce a gate for memcpy-style transfer. You name the boundary types and supported ABIs. Each target exports signatures, and a verification build permits direct byte transfer only when the type is byte-copy safe and the signature matches across the set. We'll walk through the workflow with static_assert checks and CI diagnostics: a fixed-width type that passes, a pointer-containing type rejected by admission, and a platform-divergent type rejected by signature comparison. The claim is intentionally narrow: representation compatibility, not semantic compatibility or schema evolution.

Presenters
avatar for Fanchen Su

Fanchen Su

Tech Lead, NetEase Games
Fanchen Su is a game research & development expert and team leader. He has over 20 years of experience in designing, writing, and maintaining C++ code. His main areas of interest and expertise are modern C++, code performance, low latency, and maintainability. He graduated from Wuhan... Read More →
Tuesday September 15, 2026 16:45 - 17:45 MDT
_2

16:45 MDT

Practical HPC — Forcing the Compiler's Hand with Modern C++
Tuesday September 15, 2026 16:45 - 17:45 MDT
Practical HPC — Forcing the Compiler's Hand with Modern C++

Achieving near-peak FLOPs on modern CPUs requires exploiting SIMD, register files, and cache hierarchies — yet the levers that matter most (loop unrolling, vectorization width, tile sizes, register tiling) are largely outside the programmer's direct control. Autovectorization is fragile, #pragma unroll is advisory and non-portable, and the information the compiler needs most — loop bounds, problem shapes, working-set sizes — is typically only available at runtime. The result is a familiar gap between theoretical peak and delivered performance, bridged in practice only by hand-written intrinsics or inline assembly, fragile macro forests, or external code generators that sacrifice maintainability and type safety.

Modern C++ is, sometimes surprisingly, an excellent language for closing that gap without leaving the host language. We walk through the concrete features that make this possible and how to use them in practice — templates and constexpr to promote runtime values into compile-time constants, if constexpr and parameter packs for shape-specialized kernels, generic and template lambdas for loop bodies that are unrolled and inlined by construction, and concepts to turn silent performance cliffs into compile-time errors. Together, these give the programmer precise control over what the compiler emits: compile-time dispatch that specializes kernels per shape and target, guaranteed static unrolling that unlocks ILP and register tiling without relying on optimizer heuristics, and hardware-aware specialization parameterized on register count, SIMD width, and cache sizes.

Looking forward, C++26 and static reflection push this approach considerably further, turning today's disciplined metaprogramming into something closer to first-class, in-language code generation — and squarely aligning the language with the goal of making inline assembly unnecessary, even at the highest performance tiers.

These patterns are powerful but verbose and reappear across kernels, so we briefly introduce POET (Performance Optimized Excessive Templates), a header-only library usable from C++17 onward that packages the most common cases as ready-to-use building blocks, alongside xsimd for portable SIMD.

As a concrete case study, we walk through a real scientific-computing kernel — a workload of the kind that has historically demanded hand-tuned assembly — and show how these abstractions get within a small fraction of theoretical peak throughput while keeping the source readable, portable, and maintainable, with no inline assembly, no compiler builtins, and no external code-generation step. Scientific computing does not have to choose between performance and engineering quality, and with the right abstractions, development becomes dramatically more effective.

Presenters
avatar for Marco Barbone

Marco Barbone

Software Engineer, Simons Foundation
Tuesday September 15, 2026 16:45 - 17:45 MDT
_1
 
Share Modal

Share this link via

Or copy link

Filter sessions
Apply filters to sessions.
Filtered by Date -