CppCon 2026

Much of the public criticism of C++ safety comes from vulnerabilities rooted in C patterns: raw pointer arithmetic, unchecked buffer indices, manual memory management. Modern C++ offers real answers to those problems through RAII, smart pointers, containers, and type-safe abstractions. But C++ also has its own distinct safety issues that have nothing to do with its heritage. Temporary lifetime rules that silently create dangling references. Iterator invalidation semantics that differ across containers in ways even experienced developers get wrong. Smart pointer ownership pitfalls that RAII cannot prevent. Coroutine frames that outlive their captured locals. Implicit conversions that turn a safe string into a dangling view between one line and the next. These are purely C++ problems. They compile cleanly, look correct in code review, and ship to production.

A survey of public CVE reports and security-fix commits across prominent open-source C++ projects shows the same patterns recurring again and again. This talk walks through those patterns, in code that looks correct in review, compiles cleanly, and then breaks at runtime. The session is aimed at intermediate-to-experienced C++ developers who already know modern C++ but want a working catalog of the subtle patterns that ship past typical code review.

Recognizing these patterns has long been the domain of library authors and security researchers. This talk distills a catalog from real-world fixes for everyone else: not a prescriptive standard like the Core Guidelines, but a pattern-recognition toolkit any C++ developer can apply in their next code review. The session also makes the case for expanding the community-level safety conversation to give these C++-unique patterns the same attention as the C-heritage debates.

Python's Global Interpreter Lock, which determines which single thread can execute native Python code and call C API functions, simplifies writing multithreaded code. By default, the most popular C++ bindings to this API, pybind11 and Cython, implicitly enables the GIL by default. However, sticking with this execution model leaves out extra performance afforded by modern multicore CPUs with hyperthreading, as automatic locking and unlocking of the GIL does not scale well with thread counts, especially in performance-sensitive workloads.

The newfangled free-threaded interpreter promises salvation when running either pure Python code or with compiled extensions. General multithreading rules apply (prefer thread-local variables, using locks to prevent simultaneous access of shared data), but when dealing with projects containing compiled extensions that directly or indirectly interface with Python's C API, more porting rules also apply.

Key porting tips, including projects using the Limited API, include: port native code away from C API functions that avoid borrowed references because they aren't thread-safe; modify unit tests to catch concurrency bugs arising from assuming the presence of the GIL; and extend CI coverage of Python interpreters both for testing and to build free-threaded compatible wheels.

A fundamental control structure of each programming language are loops. And we all expect them to be simple and self explanatory. However, C++ would not be C++, if there would be no tricky details to learn and respect about loops in C++.

This talk takes its time to discuss the various ways and approaches to program loops in C++. Beside basic while and for loops, we talk about the range-based for loop, and all the extensions recently added to these control structures.

In addition, we will look at other ways to program loops in C++, such as using algorithms and how to deal with parallel computing in a loop.

As a result you get a deeper understanding of the various ways loops can be programmed in Modern C++ so that you know better how to use them in practice.

In C++, monadic operations are a commonly utilized API for interacting with result types like std::optional and std::expected. By chaining the computations, these abstractions allow you to manipulate the underlying values using less boilerplate code. Monadic operations are a powerful tool suitable for a variety of usage scenarios. They enhance code robustness and significantly lower the risk of accidental errors.

Despite its benefits, many users consider the syntax of monadic operations to be overly verbose, and the underlying concept often seems complicated. There are also the cases where the restrictions placed on functions require using extra statements, specific return and arguments types, and reduce code readability. However, are there other options available? Do we have promising alternatives? The short answer is: yes. While C++ does not yet include pattern matching as a native language feature, the standard library still offers tools for achieving many useful pattern-matching-like functionalities. We will explore how to apply std::visit to this problem and evaluate if an abstraction, which we might call std::match, could serve as an effective substitute for monadic operations in various situations.

Based on several years of practical production experience, this talk will explore the use of monadic result type interfaces and comparable alternatives. This information will benefit practicing software engineers looking to deepen their understanding of these features and integrate them into their codebases.

Every Boost library that graduated to the C++ Standard became invisible. shared_ptr doesn't say "Boost" anywhere in . Boost's greatest successes carry no signature — and that invisibility is killing recruitment. This talk is not a status report. It is an answer to the question: why would I give my best work to a project that erases my name?

We begin with the people. Peter Dimov. Beman Dawes. Howard Hinnant. Marshall Clow. These engineers didn't just write libraries — they defined what production-quality C++ means. We will say their names, show their faces, and then ask the only question that matters for Boost's future: who replaces them? Every technical detail in this talk serves that question.

The answer starts with the peer review process — not as a quality gate, but as an apprenticeship. Boost review doesn't just catch bugs; it forges people. It is the mechanism by which a competent developer becomes a Dimov-class designer, and we will show how that pipeline works today.

Then the technical core. Boost.Unordered's unordered flat map — not as a benchmark, but as a character study. Joaquín López Muñoz sat down, studied SIMD probing, and built something faster than a team at Google. We won't just show a bar chart; we'll show the design decisions — the one that made it fast and the one that almost kept it from shipping. Boost.Intrusive — presented as a magic trick before an explanation. One object. Three containers. Zero allocations. We'll let the audience sit in "wait, that can't work" for ten seconds before we reveal the mechanism. Boost.Decimal — IEEE 754 decimal floating-point that feels like a native type, with portable performance rivaling GCC's non-portable _Decimal extensions. We will also cover Boost.JSON, Boost.URL, Boost.Scope, Boost.Cobalt, and the design thinking behind each.

Networking gets its own act. Beast, Corosio, Capy — presented as a list, they're alphabet soup. Presented as what they are, they become a statement of intent: Boost is building the networking layer the committee has been unable to standardize for fifteen years, and we believe we can ship it. We will show how buffer sequences, stream concepts, and type-erased I/O deliver ABI-stable networking compiled once against an abstract transport, and how this connects to active WG21 proposals for C++29.

We close not with a mailing list URL but with a name. One person — a contributor who submitted their first Boost PR this year, went through review, and is now preparing a library for formal consideration. A person is a door; a URL is a wall. The thesis of this talk is not "Boost is alive." The thesis is that Boost is where you become the engineer you want to be — and every section, from the review process to the mentorship lineage to the fact that one person can build the fastest hash map in the industry, is proof.

In low-latency C++, correctness is table stakes. What separates good systems from great ones is predictability — the ability to hit your deadline not just on average, but at the 99th and 99.9th percentile, where real workloads live. Latency is a feature, and if you don't design for it explicitly, you lose it accidentally.

This talk is a practitioner's guide to writing C++ that behaves predictably under load, drawn from experience building and tuning low-latency systems on Microsoft's Azure Core platform. We start from the mental models that matter most — CPU-centric thinking, the latency stack from L1 to DRAM, and why minimizing work, unpredictability, and memory movement is the foundation of everything else — and then work through the layers of the stack where latency is won or lost in practice.

Through live demos and benchmark data on both x86 and ARM, we'll cover:

STL containers as latency contracts — why most latency bugs start with the wrong container, the real cost of dynamic reallocation, and the measurable wins from reserve() and custom allocators.

Memory layout and cache behavior — struct layout and alignment (and how it differs on x86-64 vs. ARM64), AoS vs. SoA trade-offs, hot/cold data separation, false sharing, NUMA, and TLB pressure.

Atomics vs. mutexes — when atomics actually lose to mutexes, why architecture and memory model dictate the answer, and how to choose between them in real code.

Threading and scheduling — fixed vs. dynamic thread pools, context-switch and migration costs, and why understanding the OS is half the battle.

Benchmarking and observability — why microbenchmarks lie, how to avoid measurement bias and jitter, why latency histograms beat averages, and why "absolute benchmark" is a myth.

You'll leave with a practical playbook for designing and measuring low-latency C++ systems, an honest understanding of why benchmarks from one machine rarely generalize to another, and a sharper instinct for the silent killers — allocations, branches, cache misses, and synchronization primitives — that don't show up in code review but do show up in production.

Air-gapped systems used to be protected by what they could not reach. That assumption breaks when telemetry, sensor data, and diagnostic output leave the system and AI model-influenced behavior comes back in, even without a network connection.

This talk examines the C++ engineering decisions that determine whether that data exchange is safe or silently dangerous. The problems are C++-specific and subtle: struct layout and padding that corrupt data silently across serialization boundaries; undefined behavior in type-punned casts that passes tests but breaks under a different compiler or optimization level; ownership and lifetime assumptions that hold inside the system but become dangling references once data crosses a trust boundary; allocator and exception constraints in no-exception embedded environments that make standard validation patterns unavailable.

We will look at how C++ systems in industrial, embedded, and safety-critical environments can export logs, telemetry, and traces into AI pipelines without creating feedback loops that affect production behavior in unverified ways. The engineering controls are concrete: typed serialization boundaries that make layout assumptions explicit, schema validation that survives ABI differences between host and edge, provenance tracking built into ownership types, deterministic guardrails around probabilistic inference outputs, and fail-safe fallbacks that don't rely on the model being correct.

Attendees will leave with a design approach for integrating AI-adjacent workflows into high-integrity C++ systems. One that treats the data boundary as a first-class security surface, not an afterthought.

In CPython 3.14, we introduced an alternative interpreter implementation. This implementation used [[musttail]] , an experimental C/C++ feature that tells the compiler to enforce tail calls. Against the previous interpreter using computed gotos/switch-case, the new interpreter style shows 2%--15% performance improvement (i.e. geometric mean running time), and is more resilient against certain types of compiler bugs. This feature is already supported by Clang, GCC, and MSVC, and is also the center of a draft proposal targeting C++29. In this talk, I’ll cover the story of getting this feature into the Python interpreter, our collaboration with compiler developers, and the potential wider impact on the C++ community. I’ll also cover interesting use cases of this feature other than for writing interpreters, such as for automatically generating a simple Just in Time (JIT) compiler.

TBA

For almost 30 years, Visual Studio has been a core part of the C++ developer's toolkit on Windows. This year, we're building on that foundation with investments across three themes: making the IDE faster and more responsive for large codebases, advancing compiler conformance and runtime performance, and integrating AI-powered workflows that help you debug, refactor, and optimize more effectively. Beyond the IDE, we'll show you how AI-powered command-line tools can become a natural part of your development process. This session combines demos and practical guidance so you can get the most out of these tools right away. Come with curiosity, leave with new techniques you can apply immediately.

Teams writing modern C++ libraries with concepts, niebloids, deduction guides, and SFINAE-driven overload sets either accept wrong reference documentation or maintain a Doxygen + XSLT + Sphinx pipeline of workarounds. A different approach is to read C++ from the Clang/LLVM AST, separate corpus extraction from output templates, and recognize common idioms as first-class. This allows the source to stay clean from workarounds.

Doxygen-based pipelines all share these failures on modern C++. Constraint, noexcept, and explicit specifier expressions get truncated or dropped. Niebloids and function objects show as wrappers, not callables. Overloads distinguished by SFINAE or concepts scatter across the output, and CRTP base classes render with the wrong members. All of this disappears when the tool reads the compiler's AST and is able to instantiate specializations.

The talk then covers the architecture of MrDocs, an open-source documentation generator built on Clang/LLVM. Corpus extraction handles the redeclaration, template instantiation, and overload resolution problems that break naive AST traversal. Idiom recognition treats modern patterns as first-class metadata: niebloids, overload sets, concept constraints, requires-clauses preserved verbatim, function-object auto-detection, SFINAE overload sets, and deduction guides. It also captures the specifiers: explicit, noexcept, consteval, storage class, defaulted and deleted functions, and attributes. The templating layer gives full control over the output (HTML, AsciiDoc, Markdown, XML, or custom formats) without forking the tool.

The session is heavy on code from real C++ template libraries, with examples drawn from fmt, nlohmann/json, mp-units, and several Boost and Beman libraries. By the end, you will know why partial AST tools break on modern C++, what an alternative architecture looks like, and which idioms it has to recognize.

Many codebases contain several spots of type punning, and unfortunately a whole lot of those are incorrect and undefined behavior. While many current versions of compilers seem to do the correct thing, they might no longer do that tomorrow. Safety considerations wants to reduce/eliminate UB.

It might be worthwhile to inspect your reinterpret_cast constructs, most probably they are wrong. In this talk we will inspect what is wrong about those, we will learn about alignment, strict aliasing, object lifetime. 3 areas which might flag a red card on our type punning constructions.

Luckily the language evolved and gave us more tools to do it correctly, things like memcpy, memmove, bit cast, start lifetime_as, launder. It does however remain a dark corner and a dangerous territory to wander in. Because let's face it, zero copy is something we love in C++, and those bytes that came from the network, really are an array of integers, array of coordinates, ... Compiler, trust me, I know what I am doing. Am I?

C++20 modules are finally usable end to end, from your own modules to 'import std;' The functional build-system support with real diagnostics. This talk teaches modules the way #include was once taught: with small files, a build, and concrete use cases. Modules stopped being experimental somewhere around 2025. This session builds the mental model from scratch: what a primary module interface unit is, how partitions and implementation units fit together, and, crucially, how import differs from #include in ways that matter day to day. It uses a small library, exposes it as a module, splits it across partitions, consumes import std; and observes the compile-time effect. Then it answers the questions every team hits in week one: how modules interact with macros, with templates in headers, with header-only dependencies, and with a mixed codebase that can't convert everything at once. The examples will be using CMake, clang and recent gcc. You will leave able to structure a small library as a module, explain why a macro didn't cross a module boundary, and plan an incremental adoption that doesn't require converting the whole tree.

Production C++ code often hides small but deeply complex algorithms inside layers of engineering: APIs, lifetimes, error handling, integration, logging, and glue code. We test classes and systems, but rarely the algorithm itself in isolation.

Off-by-one errors and broken or missing invariants can survive extensive pre-production testing. Line coverage does not imply branch coverage. Branch coverage does not imply coverage of algorithmic corner cases. Testing through a wide public API often obscures the mathematical structure of the problem, making subtle bugs difficult to discover through multiple layers of abstraction.

This talk explores how to extract an "algorithmic core" from a larger component. Its correctness is fundamentally mathematical and largely language-agnostic rather than C++-specific.

Using examples such as substring matching, topological sorting variations, and lazy evaluation on trees, we will examine how problem corner cases differ from implementation corner cases, and how easily some of them are skipped.

We will discuss:

• Recognizing when an algorithm is entangled with boilerplate
• Extracting core logic without introducing accidental complexity
• What it takes to test algorithmic code in isolation
• Raising the level of abstraction to make reasoning easier without merely relocating complexity
• Using LLMs to assist in exploring and validating implementations
• Gradual rollout and comparison of competing implementations

Zero-cost abstractions are a foundational idea in C++, promising expressive, high-level code without sacrificing performance. However, developers often encounter unexpected costs when using modern abstractions in practice, even when the code appears idiomatic and well-designed.

This talk explores the assumptions behind zero-cost abstractions and examines what happens when those assumptions no longer hold. Through concrete examples drawn from modern C++ — including ranges and views, type erasure, allocators, and other common abstractions — we will examine how factors such as optimizer visibility, inlining boundaries, allocation behavior, and runtime flexibility influence performance.

This talk treats abstraction as a powerful engineering tool, examining the limits of its zero-cost guarantees in real-world systems. We will look at how seemingly small design choices can introduce hidden costs, why those costs are often difficult to spot through inspection alone, and how to recover performance without abandoning good design or readability.

Attendees will leave with a clearer understanding of when abstractions are truly zero-cost, how to recognize situations where they are not, and how to make informed tradeoffs between expressiveness, flexibility, and performance in modern C++.

Have you ever wondered why your C++ class suddenly doubled in size, or why reordering its members made it smaller? This talk introduces memory alignment in C++ from the ground up - what it is, why it is critical, and how compilers handle it under the hood. We’ll start from first principles: how modern CPUs read memory, the difference between aligned and unaligned access, and the performance costs of getting it wrong. Using benchmarks, we’ll see just how impactful misalignment can be. From there, we’ll dive into how compilers lay out data members in structs and classes, and how simple reordering can reduce memory footprint. Live coding examples will illustrate how padding is introduced and how tools like alignas, alignof, and std::align give you precise control. We’ll also look at packed data structures, which trade alignment guarantees for compactness - common in network protocols. While they can save space, they also introduce risks like undefined behavior when misused. Through real-world examples, you'll learn when packed structures make sense, and when they’re a hazard. By the end of the talk, you'll walk away with a solid intuition for alignment and the confidence to manage memory layout effectively in your programs.

There is no classical treatise on the design and implementation build systems; no faithful textbook every toolchain engineer has on their bookshelf. If there were we would need to throw it out anyway, because C++20 modules required a significant rethink of how build systems orchestrate compilation of C++ software.

It's been said over and over again that C++20 modules complicate the classic compile and link steps for C++. However, few have dived into how exactly build systems are dealing with this step-change in complexity. Talks will demo a few raw compiler invocations and say no more about the subject. This leaves engineers unequipped to deal with problems that arise in their builds; frustrated by opaque error messages and baffling build logs.

In this talk, we're going to fill in the rest of the blanks and explore exactly how build systems are tackling modules.

C++ journey doesn’t stop at C++20 where people already started to adopt. C++23 is here, it’s maturing, and it’s packed with new features that deserve your attention. In this session, we’ll explore the most practical, accessible, and impactful additions in C++23 features that you can actually start using, not just in toy projects but in real-world code bases.

We’ll compare C++23 to its predecessors, highlight key language and library improvements, and see how these tools can simplify your development, improve readability, and bring more joy to modern C++.

Whether you're already deep in C++20 or still catching up, this talk will help you chart your course into C++23 with confidence and clarity.

C++20 coroutines are a game-changer for writing asynchronous code and generators, but they come with a steep learning curve. This talk is designed to simplify the concept and make coroutines more approachable.

We’ll focus on co_await — how it works, what it does under the hood, and why it's useful. If you’ve been curious about coroutines but found the resources confusing, this talk is for you.

Notifiers are a critical synchronization primitive in task-parallel programming systems such as Intel TBB and Taskflow, responsible for efficiently sleeping and waking worker threads as tasks become unavailable and available over and over again, directly impacting scheduler throughput and latency. Correctness here is non-negotiable: a single missed wakeup can significantly hamper the performance of an entire program. Yet writing strong unit tests for notifiers is notoriously difficult, because the bugs they target, lost wakeups, spurious wakes, race conditions, are timing-dependent, non-deterministic, and often only surface under specific thread interleavings that are hard to force reliably.

The problem is compounded in practice. Notifier implementations evolve constantly: small algorithmic tweaks, memory ordering changes, and refactors across systems demand a fresh round of carefully constructed tests. This is tedious, expertise-heavy work that takes a lot of time and engineering effort. In this talk, we explore using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the generation of the unit tests for notifiers. Specifically, we will demonstrate how LLM-generated tests, guided by proper prompts can systematically stress the two-phase wait protocol across Notifiers in Taskflow. We will show this in a widely used Notifier implemented in Taskflow. We are able to find an undiscovered bug that has been existing in the project.

Choosing cache-friendly data structures is a well-known optimization, but it's rarely the whole story. This talk goes deeper, exploring the hardware mechanics that dictate real-world performance and showing where significant gains are still left on the table.

We'll start from the ground up: what actually happens inside the cache hierarchy when your code issues a memory read or a software prefetch? Understanding the hardware lets us answer, when you should prefetch manually, and when you should trust the hardware prefetcher.

From there, we'll examine the invisible cost of multi-core C++. Cache coherency protocols (MESI/MOESI) can silently degrade performance through false sharing, RFO stalls, and coherency storms. We'll walk through how to diagnose these issues using hardware performance counters and how to eliminate them.

Additionally, we will contrast these behaviors across the data cache (DCache) and instruction cache (ICache), and analyze how Translation Lookaside Buffers (TLBs) impact overall memory read latency.

Finally, we'll tie it all together by combining hardware insight with application profiling data to arrive at practical strategies for low latency C++, packaged as an application-aware memory allocator.

AI coding agents are transforming how we write C++ code and come with a growing extensibility stack. Between hooks, skills, and MCP servers it's not obvious when to reach for which in your day to day workflow. This talk demonstrates the differences through demos in a real C++ codebase. We'll build a hook that runs the project's linter and lets the agent fix any issues it finds, create a skill to flag C++ performance pitfalls, and use an MCP server to verify portability across compilers, with each technique solving a problem the others can't. Along the way, you'll see how these mechanisms compose into a single workflow. Whether you're just getting started with AI tooling or already using it daily, you'll leave knowing exactly which tool to reach for and how to get the most out of your AI coding agent for C++ development.

Benchmarks shouldn't live in a different world from tests. Most C++ projects already use Google Test, but the moment performance enters the picture, developers reach for separate tools, separate workflows, and ad-hoc timing loops that don't survive contact with CI. This talk argues for a different default: treat performance measurements as first-class tests. They are written in the same harness, run in the same suite, and fail the same builds.

Using a real C++23 framework built on top of Google Test, the session shows what that looks like in practice. Semantic macros distinguish throughput, latency, and contention tests; built-in statistical analysis tracks medians, percentiles, and coefficient of variation. Adaptive thresholds scale with payload size, so tiny operations and multi-megabyte workloads aren't held to the same stability expectations.

Once benchmarking lives inside the test framework, the rest of the performance toolchain follows. Five CPU profiler backends drop in behind a single --profile flag: perf, gperftools, bpftrace, RAPL, and callgrind. Attaching a memory profile to a test prints bandwidth, efficiency, and a CPU-bound or memory-bound classification with no extra code. The same harness extends to CUDA through a fluent kernel builder that captures launch configuration, achieved occupancy, transfer overhead, multi-GPU scaling efficiency, and thermal throttling. Nsight Compute drops in through the same --profile flag.

The payoff is CI integration that's nearly automatic. A companion CLI tool compares baseline and candidate runs, applies statistical thresholds, posts markdown reports on pull requests, and fails the build on regressions. The result is a single workflow for performance verification that scales from a developer's laptop to a CI runner to a Jetson on a workbench, across hardware ranging from x86 to ARM to RISC-V.

Code review is the most consistent contact point most senior C++ engineers have with the developers they are meant to be growing. It is also the place where well-intentioned mentorship most often turns into gatekeeping, bikeshedding, or a queue of unblocked-but-unlearned junior developers. This talk is about treating code review as a deliberate teaching practice rather than a quality gate that happens to have a comment box attached.

We will start by separating the goals of review: catching defects, enforcing conventions, transferring knowledge, and building the reviewee's judgment. These goals often pull in different directions, and most review comments only serve one of them. We will look at concrete review patterns that teach: asking questions instead of issuing edits, leaving the why alongside the what, distinguishing blocking concerns from preferences, and knowing when to pair on a change in person instead of typing a fifth comment thread.

The middle of the talk will work through real examples from reviewing C++ in production: a tricky lifetime bug, a template that needs to become a function, an overload set that quietly broke at a call site, a refactor that touched more than it should have. For each, we will compare the review comment that unblocks the developer with the review comment that teaches them, and discuss the cost of each choice.

We will close with patterns for the reviewer's own growth. How to notice when you are the bottleneck. How to recognize that the same comment is appearing on every PR and what to do about it — documentation, a lunch-and-learn, a refactor, a linter rule. How to make yourself, eventually, less necessary on your own team. Attendees will leave with specific review techniques they can try the next day, and a way to think about review as a long-running mentorship relationship instead of a per-PR transaction.

Are you smarter than a branch predictor? In this interactive, game-show themed session, the audience becomes the branch predictor: participants vote on which of two C++ snippets will run faster before we examine what actually happens on real hardware. The snippets are drawn from real world production code, and correct answers are rewarded with stress balls. Through these examples, we build a practical mental model of how modern CPUs handle control flow, and why even small branching decisions can have a significant impact on performance. A single mispredicted branch can stall a CPU pipeline for dozens of cycles, making control flow a hidden bottleneck in performance-critical systems. Using annotated assembly, performance counter data, and cross-platform comparisons, this talk explores branch prediction, misprediction costs, indirect calls and virtual dispatch, and the trade-offs between branches and conditional moves. We examine how compilers (GCC, Clang, MSVC) transform code under different optimization levels (such as -O2 and -O3), and highlight non-obvious cases where “branchless” code performs worse or behaves differently across architectures. The examples are intentionally small micro-benchmarks, but each exposes patterns that appear in real-world systems when control flow becomes the bottleneck. The session also covers how to design trustworthy micro-benchmarks and validate performance changes using hardware counters. Attendees will leave with a clearer understanding of how branches behave on modern processors, when to rely on compiler optimizations, and when to measure and optimize manually.

This talk takes you through the research and optimization of radix sort, culminating in its integration into libc++.

You will learn : common pitfalls of radix sort implementations (non-binary digits, dynamic memory allocation, fragile interfaces), how to design a strict and high-performance interface (fixed digit size, external buffer, projection to integers), and how to overcome radix sort's main drawback — its lack of naturalness — with two counter-based optimizations and a hybrid merge scheme.

The result : on arrays of 60 int32 elements (18 for int8), radix sort starts beating std::sort ; on large arrays, it's up to 10x faster. Floating-point types (float/double/float16_t) are also supported via IEEE 754 bit transformations (sign and exponent inversion for negative numbers).

The key takeaway : in modern libc++, for integers and floats, std::stable_sort on random data is noticeably faster than std::sort . Life has become better, but also more complicated — choose your sorting algorithm wisely.

Years ago while working on a service that would be deployed in Kubernetes, we decided to use the simplest possible TCP based healthcheck. Not because TCP was the right choice, but because implementing a simple HTTP endpoint was more code than it was worth. For our Go services the equivalent HTTP endpoint was only a couple of lines. In fact, we eventually ended up replacing our TCP endpoint with a small Go wrapper around our C++ service.

The Go standard library has done a great job at designing a very ergonomic HTTP library. C++ now has all the right building blocks to express the same design concepts: coroutines, concepts, std::expected, std::jthread. The question is, do these patterns transfer from Go to C++? How do we evaluate the effectiveness of the resulting design?

In this talk I will present a small HTTP library inspired by Go's net/http, built with the tools available in C++23. To evaluate the resulting design I will draw on ideas from Felienne Hermans' The Programmer's Brain and the principle, from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, that API design is language design.

Along the way we'll see which patterns transfer cleanly, which need translation, and why telling the difference is a skill worth developing even if you only work with C++.

C++ library maintainers are often in the dark as to everyone who actually depends on their code. Without that knowledge, deprecation decisions are guesses, the downstream impact of any API change is hard to predict, and the case for funding or continued investment is difficult to make rigorously. This talk demonstrates how mapping your downstream ecosystem changes the way you maintain and evolve a library, using dependent-audit, an open-source tool that discovers real-world dependents by searching public source code for #include directives and CMake integration files, and cross-referencing published academic citations. We'll show concrete examples of what this data reveals: where your true API surface lies, which users are candidates for upstream contribution, and how to make the case for your project's real-world significance. Attendees will leave with a lens for library stewardship built on data and ecosystem analysis

The Meet the Presenters Banquet is open to all attendees. Ticket required. Invitation is included with "Regular" and "Full" conference registration and is also available as a separate, stand-alone registration.

This is your opportunity to meet and discuss with the presenters (main program, poster, instructors) in a relaxed, informal environment.

Lightning talks are your five minutes of stardom. The format encourages a focused and often high-energy presentation about nearly anything (subject to approval by the conference) that might be interesting to the C++ community, including proprietary technologies. They can be of a lighter or humorous nature, but they need not be.

Submit your talk here