Using clang-cl in Visual Studio

clang-cl

 clang-cl is the command line tool in Visual Studio capable of invoking the clang compiler with the arguments of msvc. In Visual Studio projects one can just flip the toolset and the clang compiler will be chosen. clang has the following positive aspects:

• better C++ conformance. Examples are that msvc is leniant towards missing 'typename' for dependent types and 'template' for nesting templates; clang picks them up. There are other issues.
• offers some code improvements like correct member order in constructors and virtuals which override base class
• detects some performance improvements like advising to use shared_ptr by reference in loops
• more precise compilation warnings and errors

It has also some drawbacks: 

• some noisy warnings 
• does not understand all msvc code. For example the msvc's #import extension is not understood

 Despite using msvc's code analysis the clang compiler was still able to pick up other issues. Some clang warnings are far fetched and one can choose to disable them. This is especially needed for external libraries which one cannot easily patch. To disable warnings one can use the following:

#ifdef __clang__
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wimplicit-exception-spec-mismatch"
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wmissing-field-initializers"
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-W#pragma-messages"
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-but-set-variable"
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-local-typedef"
#endif

 The first one for example is necessary to suppress warnings in MFC. 'delete' should be specified with 'noexcept' but the MFC delete lacks this.

Watch out for hypes in ICT

Hypes

 ICT has a rich history of hypes where people thought that this would be a panacea for all problems. These hypes lasted for some time like paradigms in Karl Popper's science philosophy. From the top of my head we had the following hypes in the past:

• relational / SQL databases (70's)
• structural design
• object oriented design (80's)
• component based development (90's)
• design patterns (1995)
• scrum / agile (2001)
• AI (2022)

 All these hypes (except scrum) were useful but not to the extend of solving all problems. They are now part of the current solution domain. We also know now that these are still problems to tackle. Let's see what AI will bring us in the future. For now it's on the level of coding assist but not on the level of designing whole systems. In that part it still cannot replace programmers (besides that it makes mistakes).

Careful with AI tooling

AI tooling

 Since some period I started working with AI tooling. Mostly Gemini and Co pilot inside Visual Studio. The experience is a bit of mixed feelings about this. Sometimes it has good code completion suggestions. Co pilot's function name suggestion are also very welcome.

 On the other hand the AI is still full of mistakes. Lately I asked Gemini for camera sharpness algorithm. It came up with a good algorithm but the actual OpenCV function calls and parameters were incorrect. I once asked Gemini to get the real sample time from an 'IMediaSample'. It suggest to use the non existing 'GetSampleTime'. There is already a 'GetMediaTime' function but this returns the stream time; i.e. the time since the graph was running and not the time from the start of the video.

 Even worse that sometimes AI tooling can suggest plain bugs. I was implementing a swap of width and height and Co pilot's code complete came up with the following code snippet:

// NOTE: incorrect 

Size sz = ...;
if (sz.GetWidth() < sz.GetHeight())
{
   sz.SetWidth(sz.GetHeight());
   sz.SetHeight(sz.GetWidth());
}

This of course doesn't swap but sets the width and height on the old height value.

 AI tooling can be helpful but are still not on the level to be trusted blindly. They also now help with limited scope; e.g. code blocks; algorithms and functions. I am not aware if they can help in refactoring and extending architecture spanning solutions.

 

Debugging GDI drawing

GDI debugging

 The other day I had to debug a hard to track drawing bug. The application is built with the MFC framework so it still uses GDI on places to draw custom controls.

 The incorrect drawing artifact was displayed after an invocation of 'DrawText' with the flag 'DT_CALCRECT'. This was unexpected since with the flag the function doesn't draw and only measures the size. Eventually I realized that GDI batches invocations so perhaps the buggy overdrawing had already taken place before. What was needed to prove this hypothesis:

•  suppress GDI's caching mechanism through 'GdiSetBatchLimit'.
•  use direct drawing; so no memory device context

 With this in place indeed it could be seen that the mistake happened earlier in the code and that the 'DrawText' invocation was merely a flush of the GDI batch.

 Be aware that suppressing  GDI's batch might not always work. When the window where the drawing took place was on the primary monitor the batch mode could be turned off but on the second monitor it still cached its calls.

Watch out for an old VC++ runtime

 VC_redist.x64.exe

 For C/ C++ applications the VC++ runtime needs to be installed on the computer. The other day we experienced crashes when a component developed with a late version of VS2022 was crashing on a fresh installation of Windows 11. It turned out that this Windows 11 still uses an old version of the VC++ runtime which could crash the application (most notably in grabbing a std::mutex lock). After updating the PC with a recent version of 'VC_redist.x64.exe' the problem was solved.

 

ark.intel.com

 

ark.intel.com

 Intel had a wonderful website where one could easily lookup the processor and see what capabilities (e.g. SSE 4.2; AVX; AVX2) it had. In a recent visit it was completely overhauled and they have removed (or hidden) the easy possibility to lookup your processor with one click. Thanks Intel for modernizing their website and destroying a valuable functionality.

Watch out for atan change in Visual Studio 2022 17.14.6

atan

 Recently we updated Visual Studio 2022 17.14.6 and the regression test reported errors. It turned out that atan implementation was changed resulting a different value for debug vs release builts with CPU's having AVX2. One can recreate this with the following values:

    const double ax          = 38.176459921094995;
    const double ay          = 15.964755390006060;
    const double dblRotation =  atan(ay/ax);

 We had to relax the equality checks; even for deterministic calculations.