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.

C++26 introduces contract assertions: language-level constructs for expressing expectations about program correctness, optionally checking them at runtime, and configuring how violations are handled. However, what ships in C++26 is intentionally minimal — not the final destination, but a carefully designed foundation for a much more capable facility.

In this talk, we begin with a brief overview of contract assertions as they exist in C++26, including the three kinds of assertions ( pre , post , and contract_assert ), the four evaluation semantics ( ignore , observe , enforce , and quick-enforce ), and the user-replaceable contract-violation handler. The focus of the talk, however, is the next stage of evolution already underway.

We will explore the major extensions currently planned for C++29 and beyond, and the problems they are intended to address, and how they build upon the extensibility intentionally designed into the C++26 facility. Many of the concerns raised during standardisation — particularly around scalability, configurability, and expressiveness — are already being addressed by these extensions. We will discuss contract assertions on virtual functions; grouping contract assertions and configuring evaluation semantics by group; constraining evaluation semantics (for example, assertions that must always or never be enforced); postconditions that refer to earlier program state; user-defined diagnostic messages; and finally, compiler-generated, implicit contract assertions guarding against core-language undefined behavior. We then look even further ahead at more ambitious ideas still in earlier stages of exploration: class invariants, contracts on function pointers, and procedural interfaces.

Rather than just listing the proposed extensions, we will examine the design considerations behind them and show how the new functionality fits into the broader model of contract assertions in C++. What does it mean for contracts to participate in virtual dispatch? When can contract assertions support optimisation? How can evaluation semantics remain both predictable and configurable across large codebases? Understanding these questions is essential to understanding where contract assertions in C++ are heading next.

This talk is intended for anyone interested not only in how contract assertions work in C++, but also in the principles shaping their future evolution — and what a complete contract facility for C++ might ultimately look like.

For thirty years, SIMD has been the preserve of experts. Writing the fastest C++ has meant hand-written intrinsics, locking code to one architecture, and parallel implementations maintained across every instruction set you ship to. Auto-vectorization can help, but optimizers may give up in complex scenarios where iteration independence isn't obvious. C++26 changes that by putting SIMD in the hands of every C++ programmer, bringing portable, expressive data parallelism into the standard library.

For the engineers who have spent decades writing intrinsics in telecoms, finance, HPC, and embedded systems, migration to std::simd is only worthwhile if it preserves the performance they have fought to achieve. Every cycle counts when code runs tens of thousands of times per second, for years on end, and a portable abstraction that costs ten percent is not a win. The bar for adoption is therefore high: the abstraction must be measurably cheap, the generated code must match hand-written intrinsics, and the tricks and techniques those engineers rely on must all be expressible in the library, not lost in translation.

This talk takes the practitioner's view, aimed squarely at the engineers who write real intrinsics code today and need to know whether std::simd can replace it. It starts with what modern SIMD hardware actually offers, grounding std::simd in real silicon. It then works through the main features of C++26's std::simd with worked examples drawn from the patterns that recur in production intrinsics code, accessible to programmers new to the library and detailed enough for intrinsics veterans to map against their own kernels with all their accumulated tricks and techniques. A look under the hood at our implementation shows how careful API design and aggressive use of hardware features make the abstraction as cheap as the target architecture allows, and how the library fills the gaps on weaker targets with implementations that an expert library author can write once on behalf of every user. The talk closes with a preview of the C++29 proposals being written now to close the remaining gaps, so that std::simd becomes a clear win even for the most performance-critical code.

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++.

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.

How far can C++26 reflection take us? What are some techniques, gotchas, limitations and workarounds? How would reflection help write code that interacts with bespoke binary data formats? Come along as we explore a practical example together.

This talk will review advice gleaned from applying C++26 reflection to binary (structs on a wire) protocol handling. This type of protocol exists all around the world from financial market data formats to custom hardware interaction. Is the proposed reflection support enough to take a protocol definition written in the native terms of C++ and create flexible components to interact with that protocol?

This talk is the 2026 edition of our series that highlights low-latency, networking, parallelism, and concurrency proposals to the C++ Standards Committee, especially those discussed in the Kona 2025, Croydon 2026, and Brno 2026 meetings. This talk from the Concurrency TS2 Editors, DG and SG14/19 chair will describe the following features and show how they can be used. It will also give their motivation, background, and their place within the overall framework of C++ low latency, networking, parallelism and concurrency:

Atomic Compare and Hazard Pointers Reclamation Control

• We discuss a proposal for atomic compare operations that clarify programmer intent and simplify static analysis by avoiding the unnecessary leakage of atomic values. We also explore how these operations complement recent proposals to enhance the expressiveness of atomics, such as the use of tagged pointers.
• We examine techniques for controlling C++26 hazard pointer reclamation, demonstrating how to offload retirement overhead to asynchronous executors to ensure predictable thread latency. We show how this capability can prevent specific deadlock scenarios and assess whether such controllers should be standardized or remain user-space patterns.

Twenty-One Years Without Sockets, The History of Networking in C++ and What We Learned Along the Way

• Go has standard networking. Rust has standard networking. C++ has been trying since 2005. This talk tells the twenty-one-year story in seventeen minutes: the library that shipped but never standardized, the dependency that blocked it, the coroutine revolution that changed the assumptions, the technical discovery that explains why I/O doesn‚Äôt fit the three-channel model cleanly, and the bridge that lets both models win. Three decision points, three lessons, one live question: how should coroutines and senders coexist for C++29? No villains. Just the story and the engineering. Networking is now finally a C++29 priority, so said the Direction Group‚Äôs P5000.

Out-of-Thin-Air (OOTA) Values.

• The memory models for high-level languages, including C++, C, Rust, and even Java, have been prone to out-of-thin-air values. For example, given two atomic integers X and Y, both initially zero, if one thread does a relaxed assignment from X to Y and the other does a relaxed assignment from Y to X, the mathematical C++ memory model does not rule out the outcome where both X and Y have the value 42. However, both communication and computation take time, and so we have proven that OOTA values cannot happen on real-world production-quality computer systems. This result makes compiler-writers‚Äô lives easier, and also eases the jobs of those brave individuals pursuing the full mathematical OOTA problem by relieving them of the need to live within CPU and memory constraints of production-quality compilers.

Discussion

There are other features under discussion, but the features we will present seem close to approval, are particularly interesting, and/or are relatively non-controversial. We will show use cases for each and prognosticate their journeys to C++26 and beyond. This will help programmers in concurrency, lock-free programming, and low-latency applications understand how best to take advantage of each of these important facilities.

For the first time in a generation, the C++ Standards Committee has a new convenor. Meet Guy Davidson.

In the decade since joining the Committee, Guy has not personally authored wording that made it into the Standard. Yet, he exemplifies what the role demands: the ability to work intently, iterate relentlessly, absorb setbacks, adapt, and return stronger. He pairs that with a deep commitment to guiding the evolution of a language that underpins much of the modern world – and a rare talent for setting aside ego to build consensus. Sometimes, he even does it in iambic pentameter; at others, in the rhythm of a sea shanty.

In this fireside chat, Guy will reflect on what it means to inherit an institution, his first months in the role, and the moment 118 hands rose in support of C++26 – while Bjarne Stroustrup’s did not. He’ll also share his own work: projects aimed at expanding C++’s capabilities, including an idea inspired by game engine design that has caught the attention of leading climate scientists.

Scripting in a C++ game engine should not cost you the engine's native performance. This talk shows how C++26 static reflection and std::meta::substitute in particular can lift a scripting language's bytecode into C++ template structures that the compiler optimizes away entirely, collapsing the interpreter dispatch loop into the same machine code you'd write by hand. Scripting languages like AngelScript and Lua are invaluable in C++ engines: they give designers a fast iteration loop without rebuilding the engine. But they come with a paradox. The engine you chose for raw performance now spends cycles on every frame interpreting a slower language, juggling a software stack and checking types at runtime. We will walk through the technique step by step, starting from a plain bytecode interpreter and ending at a fully reflected program where a scripted sum(0..10) compiles to mov eax, 45; ret. Along the way you'll learn the core C++26 reflection primitives (^^, [: :], std::meta::substitute), how to assemble bytecode into structural templates like block<> and loop<>, and how these techniques generalize to embedding any stack or register based scripting language in your engine with zero runtime overhead.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

For a long time, programming was constrained by our ability to produce code. That constraint is eroding rapidly. AI systems can now generate substantial amounts of code with little effort, while inspection, validation, and integration remain difficult.

This transition alters the economics of software engineering. Code is becoming easier to generate than to reason about, and sound judgment grows scarcer relative to specialized intelligence. The emphasis shifts from authoring programs to understanding systems: their structure, invariants, interactions, and long-term evolution.

The talk examines this transition through the lenses of history, language design, and recent developments in AI and metaprogramming. It argues that the central challenges ahead concern not code generation, but the management of complexity at scale.

Topics include: - historical parallels and failed predictions in computing - AI-assisted software development - language design and metaprogramming - C++ reflection and compile-time programming - abstraction as context compression - complexity management in large systems

AI will undoubtedly transform how we build software. As before, the decisive factor will be our capacity to adapt.

The next evolution of C++ has officially arrived, bringing a massive wave of enhancements to both the core language and the Standard Library. But with hundreds of committee proposals officially baked into the standard, where do you start? Continuing the tradition from previous releases, this fast-paced session delivers a comprehensive look at the new and updated features that define C++26.

We won’t get bogged down in the minutiae of every single ISO proposal—covering everything in detail is impossible in just one hour. Instead, you'll get a high-level, curated overview of the most impactful changes, from the major game-changers down to the small quality-of-life gems. If you want to get up to speed with the new standard and see how it will shape your codebase, this session is for you.

The session will touch on the following core language and Standard Library topics.

C++26 core language changes include - Reflection - Contracts - Unnamed placeholder variables - = delete("reason"); - Pack indexing - #embed - constexpr exceptions, constexpr placement new - Variadic friends - ...

C++26 Standard Library changes include - Execution control library - New libraries such as , , , , , and more - std::inplace vector: dynamically-resizable vector with fixed capacity - std::philox engine: counter-based random number engine - std::text_encoding: text encodings identification - More constexpr for containers and container adaptors - Saturation arithmetic - New SI prefixes - Printing Blank Lines with std::println() - ...

Where applicable, I’ll point you toward other specialized CppCon sessions for those ready to dive even deeper into specific topics.

How to Choose and Use the Right Container in Modern C++: Part 1, Classic Containers

Choosing the right container and using it correctly can have a profound impact on the performance of a program, but doing so is harder than you might think. In Part 1 we will survey the containers and adaptors in the C++17 Standard Library, and discuss how to choose the best tool for the job and extract the best performance from it. We will consider the abstractions they model and the practical limitations they impose, and find that choosing between them requires an understanding not only of the speed and size tradeoffs of each container, but also of the difference between algorithmic complexity and actual behavior. And we will flag aspects of the standard containers that, without this understanding, can lead you to the wrong choice.

How to Choose and Use the Right Container in Modern C++: Part 2, New and Future Containers

Choosing the right container and using it correctly can have a profound impact on the performance of a program, but doing so is harder than you might think. In Part 2 we will survey the new containers and adaptors introduced to the Standard Library in C++23/26, and discuss how to choose the best tool for the job and extract the best performance from it. We will consider the abstractions they model and the practical limitations they impose, and find that choosing between them requires an understanding not only of the speed and size tradeoffs of each container, but also of the difference between algorithmic complexity and actual behavior. And we will examine a proposal for a future container that diverges from the historical STL design principles and ask: what makes for a good container design?

Why does 0.1 + 0.2 not equal 0.3? Because binary floating-point cannot exactly represent most decimal fractions, the value 0.1 simply does not exist in IEEE 754 binary. For applications where rounding errors are unacceptable, finance, billing, regulatory reporting, scientific data interchange, this is a structural problem, not a precision setting that can be tuned away. IEEE 754-2008 introduced a decimal floating-point alternative that stores the significand in base 10, and ISO/IEC TR 24733 sketched a C++ binding for it. Compiler support, however, has remained uneven across vendors and architectures.

Boost.Decimal is a header-only, dependency-free, C++14 implementation of IEEE 754-2008 and TR 24733 decimal floating-point. It provides three IEEE-conformant types, decimal32 t, decimal64 t, and decimal128 t, and three companion decimal fast* t types that trade strict bit-layout conformance for speed where you don't need on-the-wire interoperability. All six types behave like built-in floating-point: they're constexpr-friendly throughout, support mixed arithmetic and promotion, and ship with their own implementations of , , , , , hashing, , and Boost.Math integration. The library is tested natively on x86 64, ARM64, and s390x, and under emulation on PPC64LE and ARM Cortex-M.

This talk is the introduction to decimal floating-point that most C++ programmers never got. We'll cover what decimal floating-point actually is at the bit level (BID vs. DPD encodings, the cohort concept that has no analogue in binary), why the standard library's defaults are what they are (e.g. Rounding), and how Boost.Decimal's API maps onto familiar and patterns. We'll work through worked examples, parsing a price feed, computing financial summary statistics through Boost.Math, round-tripping values through while preserving cohort information, and walk through the library's deliberate deviations from both IEEE 754 and the C++ standard, including why floating-point exception flags were sacrificed to keep constexpr and how from_chars was extended to distinguish overflow from underflow as well as preserve cohorts. We'll close with reviews of the benchmarks versus binary floating point, as well as other existing libraries.

By the end, attendees will know when reaching for decimal is the right call, which of the six types fits their workload, and what trade-offs the library made on their behalf.

Language bindings for C++ can be valuable tools for developers who wish to make C++ libraries available for use in other programming languages, like Python. There are many reasons developers may wish to do this, including testing, prototyping, or performance.

One of the issues often faced when writing bindings for C++ is the need to write excessive amounts of boilerplate code to bridge the gap between the C++ types and interfaces and their equivalents in other languages.

Building on previous presentations, this talk will not just explore how you can use Reflection in C++26 to generate the necessary binding code, but also how you can integrate this into a CMake-based build system to enable the automatic generation of bindings for existing classes or libraries with minimal additions. We will present real-world examples, primarily using Python, to show how language bindings can be automatically generated, but we also show how this can be extended to other languages.

C++26 is often defined by its headline features — reflection, contracts, and senders/receivers. But those don’t tell the whole story.

In this talk, we’ll look beyond the headlines to explore the changes that more accurately reflect where C++ is heading. While less visible, these features address long-standing pain points, improve consistency, and quietly reshape everyday programming in C++.

We'll examine the continued expansion of constexpr, including the ability to throw exceptions at compile time, and what it means for the boundary between compile-time and runtime. We'll also discuss the evolving model of erroneous behavior and indeterminate values, making it more explicit what constitutes incorrect code — and how implementations can reason about it.

Safety is also becoming a stronger focus in the standard library. With the introduction of library hardening, C++26 takes steps toward making incorrect usage easier to detect and harder to ignore, without sacrificing performance.

Along the way, we'll look at improvements to function wrappers with std::function_ref and std::copyable_function , enhancements to structured bindings, and the growing capabilities of std::format . We'll also cover pack indexing and its impact on template expressiveness, as well as the ongoing expansion of the freestanding library.

Rather than focusing on individual features in isolation, this talk connects them into a broader narrative: the real direction of C++26 — toward greater clarity, expressiveness, and safety in everyday code.

C++ lifetime management is fundamentally built around synchronous scope exit. Constructors establish invariants, destructors release resources, and RAII permits ownership and cleanup to compose naturally with ordinary control flow. Asynchronous systems disrupt this model. Destruction may itself require asynchronous work, and “just launch another task in the destructor” quickly turns deterministic lifetime management into unstructured background activity.

This talk explores the implementation of async lifetime management in std::execution, based on the enter/exit scope sender framework proposed in P3955. Rather than treating async construction and destruction as special cases, the model reframes them as composable asynchronous protocols built around explicit async scope entry and exit operations. The talk follows the process of turning these ideas into working code, beginning from the low-level enter/exit sender abstractions and progressively assembling higher-level lifetime facilities on top. Along the way, the implementation uncovers an important self-similarity in the problem domain: Higher-level async lifetime facilities can themselves be expressed in terms of the same lower-level async lifetime primitives.

The implementation discussion focuses on the machinery required to make these guarantees real: Coordinating async teardown within structured concurrency, managing partially-entered scopes, and preserving deterministic cleanup semantics even when destruction itself becomes asynchronous. The resulting design serves both as a practical exploration of async lifetime management and as a case study in how implementing an abstraction can reveal deeper structural properties hiding inside the model itself.

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.