Watch out for MSVC's std::map's move constructor

move constructor

 The other day I found out that MSVC's std::map move constructor doesn't have noexcept:

map(map&& _Right) : _Mybase(_STD move(_Right)) {}

This means that it can throw when moved and it's not eligible for move_if_noexcept which is used in vector reallocation's. I filed a report but it got rejected. Take care when you want map's to be moveable (which can be a factor compared to copying all nodes).

Careful with mixing types in loop variables

Loop

 The other day I stumbled upon code which accidentally used a double as end condition:

#include <cstdint>
#include <cstdlib>

constexpr double g_dW = 10;

int main()
{
    int res = 0;

    for (int n = 0; n < g_dW; ++n)
    {
        res += std::rand(); // use rand just to have a valid loop
    }
    
    return res;
}

One would think that the optimizer Visual Studio 2019 16.13 is smart enough to use integer comparison but this is not the case. VS2019 issues a relative expensive integer to double conversion and comparison:

   
    for (int n = 0; n < g_dW; ++n)
00007FF7C9A01011  movsd       xmm6,mmword ptr [__real@4024000000000000 (07FF7C9A02240h)]  
00007FF7C9A01019  mov         edi,ebx  
00007FF7C9A0101B  nop         dword ptr [rax+rax]  
    {
        res += std::rand();
00007FF7C9A01020  call        qword ptr [__imp_rand (07FF7C9A02188h)]  
00007FF7C9A01026  inc         edi  
00007FF7C9A01028  add         ebx,eax  
00007FF7C9A0102A  movd        xmm0,edi  
00007FF7C9A0102E  cvtdq2pd    xmm0,xmm0  
00007FF7C9A01032  comisd      xmm6,xmm0  
00007FF7C9A01036  ja          main+20h (07FF7C9A01020h)  
    }
    
    return res; 

The solution is simple to use an integer as block condition:

 constexpr int g_dW = 10;

Therefore watch out that VS2019 does not optimize things automatically.

 

Explicit member function template specialisation on Visual Studio 2019

Template member function templates

  Classes can have member function templates. These member templates can be explicit specialized. For example:

struct Foo
{
   template <typename T>
   void f()
   {
   }
};

template <>
inline void Foo::f<int>()
{
   // full specialization
}

It seems that Visual Studio 2019 allows for an illegal syntax with the full specialization declaration in the class itself:

struct Foo
{
   template <typename T>
   void f();
   
   // illegal?
   template <>
   void Foo::f<int>();
};

template <>
void Foo::f<int>()
{
}

Also the inline specifier isn't necessary then in Visual Studio without running into errors with duplicate symbols.

Links

• Explicit specialization of member function template in source file
  

Visual Studio std::pow implementations

pow

After an upgrade of Visual Studio 2017 to 2019 it was noticed that regression tests were failing with the new version. There were multiple causes; one of them was that (yet again) the implementation of std::pow had changed.

 The Visual Studio 2017 implementation uses a different code path for the common power 2 (square) case: it issues a simple multiplication. The implementation is something like this:

_Check_return_ inline double pow(_In_ double _Xx, _In_ int _Yx) noexcept
       {
       if (_Yx == 2)
              return (_Xx * _Xx);

       return (_CSTD pow(_Xx, static_cast<double>(_Yx)));
       }

 The Visual Studio 2019 implementation isn't available in source code form but the exceptional code path for calculating the square seems not present anymore. This gives (small) differences with some numbers, e.g. the square of '0.10000000055703842' gives a different result.

Alternative

Luckily boost offers an alternative for calculating squared and other integer powers known at compile time in its math library:

#include <boost/math/special_functions/pow.hpp>

constexpr double d = 0.10000000055703842;

const double d2 = boost::math::pow<2>(d);

 Using this function should give stable result for the coming upgrades of Visual Studio. It has also the extra benefit of better performance. Results of a test case with running many power calculations:

Function	Time (s)
boost::math::pow<2>	0.241
std::pow	9.395

  Note that instead of using a power function direct multiplication is ofc also possible. Often though these power functions are fed with another calculated value which otherwise has to be duplicated or write down explicitly:

const double d = std::sqrt(boost::math::pow<2>(pt.x - x) + boost::math::pow<2>(pt.y - y));

 Boost's math::pow has the extra benefit of doing the least amount of multiplications in case the power is larger than 3.