CppCon 2026

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.

C++ runs the world’s systems, and with that comes a responsibility for safety and stability. Avoiding AI entirely gives up on incredible potential benefits, but using AI without guardrails poses significant risks to our critical systems. How does AI fit into this world? This talk examines effective and ineffective approaches to using AI in systems that cannot afford “slop.” We will explore several case studies where AI produced significant value in C++, and several where it did not. The pattern that emerges is consistent: AI thrives when it is orchestrating well-defined, deterministic components, translating between them intelligently without being trusted to reason correctly on its own. When AI is asked to be the system rather than connect the system, things fall apart.

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

In the C++ world, it is often assumed that proper object lifetime management ensures a memory footprint that scales with an application’s actual needs. However, long-running systems are frequently sabotaged by heap pinning: a phenomenon in which Resident Set Size (RSS) refuses to shrink even after significant deallocations. This results in a critical, 'invisible' overhead that defies standard leak-detection tools and can lead to system thrashing and even Out Of Memory (OOM) kills.

Heap pinning occurs when long-lived allocations are interleaved with transient ones, creating a structural barrier that prevents the underlying allocator from releasing memory back to the system. A single persistent allocation can 'pin' an entire block of physical memory, forcing the OS to keep it mapped even if the surrounding space is empty. Consequently, the process footprint reflects historical peak usage rather than the current live state.

In this talk, we will bridge the disconnect between C++ deallocations and physical memory reclamation. You will learn to use allocator-aware objects and std::pmr resources to eliminate pinning by strategically segregating allocations based on their expected lifetimes. We will also demonstrate how to diagnose these 'ghost' overheads when traditional heap profilers fall short. You’ll leave the session equipped to identify and resolve these fragmentation traps, ensuring your application’s memory footprint finally stays proportional to its actual state.

Refactoring is defined as "the process of changing a software system in a way that does not alter the external behavior of the code yet improves its internal structure", and is a core skill and process in modern software development. From "cleaning up a little mess" to handling legacy code to improving testability to completely changing architecture, refactoring is the process to achieve that elusive thing, "clean, elegant, and maintainable code".

This talk will cover the basics of Refactoring from three angles. First, we will cover a few of the most important refactoring techniques and connect them to other well-known points of good C++ style.

Second, we'll talk about how to decide what and where to refactor. Common "code smells" are good places to start, but we will also discuss how to look for "seams" along which code can be cut, and how to find hints left in the code by previous developers that can point the way.

Third, we'll discuss how to successfully execute refactoring, even on a busy team and a big code base. What is the "blast radius" of a change, how to minimize the disruption it causes, and how to avoid annoying co-workers in the process.

Today's world runs on C++. That's because, in domains requiring scale, performance, low latency, and fine-grained control over concurrency, C++ is second to none! Yet in recent years, a growing concern has emerged: C++ programs are often considered unsafe — not because of programmer negligence, but because the language itself provides insufficient mechanisms to prevent or reliably detect undefined behavior (UB).

For those financially and technically invested in C++, its current lack of language safety raises a fundamental question: How can we evolve ISO C++ to be UB-safe without necessarily sacrificing runtime performance, and without breaking backward compatibility with existing, valid C++ code?

In this talk, we begin by motivating an overall approach to UB-safety that starts from a simple but uncompromising premise: each individual potential source of UB must be able to be detected via runtime checking. Crucially, this approach eliminates the notion of "safe" and "unsafe" regions of a program — there is no place where UB can hide, and no need to switch languages, subsets, or tools to achieve comprehensive coverage.

We then examine how the C++26 contracts facility provides the essential foundation for transforming optional runtime checks into the practical, scalable mechanisms to eliminate UB bugs in production software. Contracts give developers fine-grained control over where and when checking occurs, allowing runtime overhead to be spent where it is affordable or most valuable — such as in new, rarely executed, or security-critical code. These decisions naturally evolve over time, as long-running checks that never fire may no longer justify their cost.

Finally, we outline the concrete steps of an incremental journey toward reducing undefined behavior in ISO C++. The result is a model of UB-safety — rooted in C++26 contracts and optional runtime checking — that is competitive with, and in key respects stronger than, approaches taken by other high-performance languages. Most importantly, this model applies not only to new code, but to the vast body of existing C++ software already in the wild.

What makes an async workflow readable? Not just linear control flow — you also need to see where errors go, what each step depends on, and how failures compose. This talk takes a single production workflow — multiple async RPC calls with conditional branching, parallel fan-out, and partial-failure handling — and shows it implemented in three paradigms: callbacks with thread pools, a workflow orchestration graph over futures, and coroutines with std::expected. We evaluate each through four questions: where does the control flow live, the error flow, the coupling, and the migration risk?

Coroutines restore linear control flow, but without structured error composition, the workflow drowns in manual failure checks at every step, that is more error-handling code than business logic. Task

Modern C++ gives developers powerful tools to write cleaner, safer, and more expressive code — but many production codebases still suffer from excessive boilerplate, repetitive patterns, and verbose implementations inherited from older C++ styles.

This talk explores practical modern C++ techniques that significantly reduce lines of code while preserving readability, maintainability, and runtime performance.

Through real-world examples, we will refactor traditional C++ implementations using features such as ranges, structured bindings, constexpr, concepts, CTAD, lambdas, std::optional, std::variant, and std::expected. We will examine where these features genuinely improve code quality — and where they can accidentally hurt clarity or performance if misused.

The session also goes beyond syntax improvements by analyzing generated assembly, compiler optimizations, allocations, and benchmark results to validate whether “shorter” code truly remains zero-cost.

Attendees will leave with practical patterns they can immediately apply to modernize existing codebases, reduce unnecessary complexity, and write more expressive C++ without sacrificing performance.

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.

Tooling Track sessions are sponsored by Optiver.