CppCon 2026

This talk presents some design choices, compromises, and optimisations of the implementations of std::flat map and std::flat set. It will cover a brief design history of the original paper regarding the class layout, libc++'s best effort to provide strong exception guarantee on those containers, compromise on the iterator choices between SCARY and more strongly typed, some optimisations on various operations and some tips about avoiding running some issues with these containers.

std::atomic and std::memory_order are utterly opaque abstractions. It feels like they were put in place to hide some monstrosity that is too complex for mortals to comprehend, and inevitably when trying to understand the underlying reality, the explanations end with 'the processor does weird things' and 'think about it as if...'.

Well, 'think about it as if' no more. In this talk we'll present the gory and wonderful mechanics of cache coherence protocols, store buffers, cache invalidation queues and the in-processor load-store-queue. We'll explain how modern hardware design makes different cores have different views of memory, and what fences and read-modify-write instructions do exactly - for both x86/64 and ARM/RISC-V (which are sometimes dramatically different).

This is an advanced low-level talk located at the borderline of software development and electrical engineering, discussing topics rarely - if ever - discussed at C++ conference talks.

Modern storage hardware has evolved at a breakneck pace. PCIe Gen 5 NVMe drives can push data at 10 GB/s, yet standard C++ file abstractions often leave them starving for data. Many developers think they need to abandon portability in favor of unmaintainable, OS-specific kernel bypasses to achieve the throughput necessary to saturate these drives. This session is for developers writing high-throughput, performance-critical applications who want to hit bare-metal speeds without sacrificing clean architecture, cross-platform support, or type safety.

Using a high-throughput cryptographic hashing engine as a concrete case study, this presentation demonstrates how to design a hardware-saturating data pipeline built entirely on the idioms of C++26. We will explore how the mathematical design of an algorithm - specifically BLAKE3's binary Merkle tree structure - can be mapped directly to wide SIMD vector lanes and concurrent CPU cores. We will walk through an execution model that completely bypasses the OS page cache, orchestrates memory without heap allocations on the hot path, and unifies OS kernel quirks in a portable way.

By the end of this presentation, you will learn how to replace rigid thread pools with lock-free, asynchronous execution graphs using Sender/Receiver paradigms (std::execution) and vectorization (std::simd). Crucially, we will focus on the build engineering required to make this work today. We will cover how to use advanced CMake tooling to safely compile multi-architecture vector binaries from a single source of truth, how to prevent LTO cross-contamination, and how to structure your pipeline today to seamlessly absorb upcoming C++ features in a world of trailing vendor toolchains.

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

Compiler Explorer looks simple: type code, get assembly. Underneath: a fleet of sandboxed machines running hundreds of compilers across dozens of languages, terabytes of binaries to keep current, and the ongoing problem of executing arbitrary code from internet strangers.

A lot has changed in the 14 years that the site has been around: The sandboxing layers that let it run other people's code without losing sleep. The storage situation that very nearly broke it, and the content-addressable filesystem that quietly rescued everything. The operational war stories, the migration sagas, and the bits that are far more boring than they look from the outside. Along the way you'll see some of CE's recent features in their natural habitat, and get a peek at what's coming next.

You'll come away with a working mental model of how to run untrusted compilation at scale - and why the parts that look easy are almost always the hard ones.

Last year, the title of this talk would have been "AI in a C++ World." That it isn't anymore tells you most of what changed.

A year ago, AI was the visitor we were evaluating. Now, it is the room we work inside, and the question for C++ programmers is no longer whether to take the technology seriously but how to keep doing serious work in its presence.

Another year of using these tools in earnest on production C++ has clarified what works, and given me an actual workflow to point at instead of a set of slogans.

I'm a professional C++ developer, and yet I haven't written a line of code since last November. Not because I've not written any code, but because AI has written every line.

It is not a theoretical presentation, but a working practitioner's report. I'll walk you through the development workflow I now use for serious C++ development.

Along the way I'll cover what C++ developers actually need to know about how LLMs work, what the agentic loop is, and how to get production-quality C++ out of these systems. The tone is practical, but opinionated, though those opinions are based on personal experience.

If you are not yet using AI as another independent member of your development team, or if you think I'm completely off my rocker, then this talk is definitely for you.

Applications that present rapidly changing market data to human users face a practical challenge: updates may arrive thousands of times per second, but humans only benefit from periodic refreshes. Efficiently coalescing and scheduling that work without overwhelming CPU resources becomes a concurrency problem rather than simply a rendering problem.

This talk demonstrates how modern C++ atomics can be used to build a lock-free timer scheduler optimized for extremely high update rates. The scheduler follows a single-producer, multiple-consumer design in which work items represent recurring tasks that must execute periodically. Consumers process scheduled work and re-schedule it for future execution without relying on traditional locks or centralized coordination.

The most unusual aspect of the design is its “reverse work stealing” behavior: consumers can proactively give away work to other consumers and become idle themselves. Rather than distributing work evenly across all threads, the scheduler attempts to pack work onto as few cores as possible, reducing idle spinning, lowering CPU utilization, and improving cache locality. Because tasks may have highly variable execution times, the scheduler must also prevent pathological cases where work is endlessly redistributed between consumers.

Attendees will learn how atomics, lock-free forward lists, and memory ordering can be combined to implement high-throughput schedulers with predictable latency characteristics. The talk also discusses practical tradeoffs, implementation challenges, and performance measurements from production-inspired workloads, including producer throughput of approximately 50 million scheduled tasks per second and consumer processing throughput approaching 700 million tasks per second, while keeping migrated work items below 1% in typical workloads.

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.