# The Superconstructing Super Elider

Today a coworker asked me why there was an “extra” move happening in the following code:

struct Widget {
int value_;
explicit Widget(int i) : value_(i) { puts("construct from int"); }
Widget(Widget&&) noexcept { puts("move-ctor"); }
~Widget() { puts("destructor"); };
static Widget make() { return Widget(42); }
};

int main() {
vector<Widget> vec;
vec.reserve(100);
vec.push_back(Widget::make());  // HERE
}


On the line marked // HERE, we observe that the compiler generates a call to Widget::make() to construct a Widget object on the stack; then it passes the address of that stack object (as Widget&&) to vec.push_back, which uses the move constructor of Widget to move it into its final location within the vector’s allocated buffer.

This seems inefficient, said my coworker. What we want to happen is, it should construct the Widget directly into the allocated buffer, with no intermediate move. “C++11 to the rescue,” right? Let’s use that “perfect forwarding” we’ve heard so much about!

    vec.emplace_back(Widget::make());


…Same thing. The factory function constructs onto the stack, and then the vector moves the Widget from the stack into the buffer. Well, of course. The signature of emplace_back(Args&&...) is not significantly different from the push_back(T&&) that we were using before.

## Eliminating redundant moves via emplace_back_with_result_of

This leaves space “underneath” the standard library for us to do better. Consider the following fixed_capacity_vector implementation:

template<class T, int Cap>
class fixed_capacity_vector {
int size_ = 0;
alignas(T) char buffer_[Cap][sizeof(T)];
public:
// ...

template<class... Args>
T& emplace_back(Args&&... args) {
assert(size_ < Cap);
T *p = new ((void*)buffer_[size_]) T(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
size_ += 1;
return *p;
}
};


We compile our sample emplace_back and observe that the compiler has generated a redundant move operation, just as it does with the real std::vector.

Then we add the following “improved” function:

    template<class F>
T& emplace_back_with_result_of(const F& factory_fn) {
assert(size_ < Cap);
T *p = new ((void*)buffer_[size_]) T(factory_fn());
size_ += 1;
return *p;
}
};


This code is fundamentally different from emplace_back, in a way that allows fundamentally better codegen. In the former case, we call Widget::make() to get a new object, and then call emplace_back to do some address computation and ultimately move the object into its final location in the vector. The move is unavoidable. In the latter case, we defer the call to Widget::make() until the middle of emplace_back_with_result_of. So, by the time we call Widget::make (a.k.a. factory_fn), the vector has already done the computation to figure out the final resting place of our new Widget object. It then calls Widget::make with exactly that address in the return slot, which means that we construct the return value of Widget::make directly into its final location in the vector!

vec.emplace_back(Widget::make());  // Does an extra move

vec.emplace_back_with_result_of([]{
return Widget::make();  // Constructs in-place
});


Neat, huh?

Notice that none of the explanation here has changed since move semantics were introduced in C++11; and an analogous scenario can be constructed in C++98 using copy semantics, as well. The only thing that has changed in the last 20 years is that prior to C++17, compilers were permitted to do two moves in the first case and one (or two?) moves in the latter case, whereas as of C++17, any compiler that still does that is officially non-conforming. No compiler has actually done those extra moves for years, though. C++17’s “guaranteed copy elision” was really just catching the Standard up to existing practice.

## Rabbit hole avoidance: Allocators

The real STL’s std::vector has no emplace_back_with_result_of. And it can’t easily add one, because the new method would have to respect the rules of allocator-awareness. Which means that it could not so blithely call

T *p = new ((void*)buffer_[size_]) T(factory_fn());


It would actually have to do something like

T *p = (T*)buffer_[size_];
allocator_traits<A>::construct(
get_allocator(), p, factory_fn()
);


which would still have the extra move (it’s calling factory_fn before it knows where the result needs to go), so again we’d have to refactor and call

T *p = (T*)buffer_[size_];
allocator_traits<A>::construct_with_result_of(
get_allocator(), p, factory_fn
);


which would involve adding a new member to allocator_traits, and… so on down the rabbit hole. So please don’t expect emplace_back_with_result_of to arrive in your friendly neighborhood STL anytime soon!

Besides, I have a better idea…

## The Super-Elider

(Thanks to Connor Waters for working this idea out with me today.)

The “extra move” problem with emplace_back is closely related to another C++ WTF that I’ve known about for a long time:

template<class T>
inline constexpr T identity(T x) { return x; }

Widget y = identity(identity(Widget(42)));


This code constructs a Widget with the value 42; and then moves it; and then moves it again (into its final resting place, the address of y). It seems silly that the compiler doesn’t optimize it into a single construction at address y to begin with! But in fact the compiler is currently forbidden to do that optimization.

According to the rules of C++, every “observable” side-effect in the program must take place, unless it is specifically permitted to be elided. And the only operations that the Standard specifically permits us to elide are copy-constructions and move-constructions under very specific conditions. One of these conditions is that the source must not be a function parameter. So the move-constructions from x into the return slot of identity, and again from x into the return slot of identity, are not elidable; but the final move from the return slot of identity into the address of y is elidable (because it is moving out of a return slot, and that’s specifically permitted to be elided).

A component programmer must be able to make some fundamental assumptions about the interfaces she uses […] The operations we have discussed here, equality and copy, are central because they are used by virtually all programs. They are also critically important because they are the basis of many optimizations which inherently depend upon knowing that copies create equal values, while not affecting the values of objects not involved in the copy. Such optimizations include, for example, common subexpression elimination, constant and copy propagation, and loop-invariant code hoisting and sinking. These are routinely applied today by optimizing compilers to operations on values of built-in types. Compilers do not generally apply them to operations on user types because language specifications do not place the restrictions we have described on the operations of those types.

Twenty years later, very little has changed. C++11 made some halting steps in the right direction by defining notions of “defaulted” and “trivial” special member functions; but there are still many cases even in the standard library where a special member function may be non-trivial but still, let’s say, Stepanov-friendly.

std::string y = identity(identity(std::string("hello world")));


Compilers generate just terrible code for this kind of thing. We want to tell the compiler, here, “I promise that std::string is a nice clean Stepanov-friendly value type; please feel free to treat it as such.” And then the inliner could look at this code, determine that it was ultimately just assigning "hello world" into y, and just do that.

The reason C++ doesn’t allow the compiler to just make that assumption by default is that in C++, the notions of “value” and “object” are still pretty tangled up together. In C++, everything is an object (or else a reference to an object), and objects have addresses.

int count_up(const std::string& s) {
static std::map<const void *, int> m;
}

int main() {
std::string x = "hello world";
assert(count_up(x) == 1);
assert(count_up(x) == 2);
assert(count_up(std::string(x)) == 1);  // Whoa!
}


The output of this program must be the same on every conforming C++ implementation — because, remember, C++ compilers are not allowed to elide copies or moves (not even silly-looking ones like std::string(x)) unless that elision is specifically permitted by the Standard.

If we were willing to break sneaky code like the above — code that claims to work with value types, but then deliberately goes and looks at the object address of the underlying non-value C++ object — then we could make std::string(x) mean exactly the same thing as x, which is quite possibly what new C++ programmers expect is supposed to happen anyway.

I suggest that a relatively plausible way this could happen is by the introduction of an attribute which I am going to call __attribute__((value_semantic)). (Another option would be to recycle __attribute__((pure)), as in “pure value”. I am specifically not going to use C++11 [[attr]] syntax in this blog post, so as not to open that can of worms.)

struct Widget __attribute__((value_semantic)) {
int value_;
explicit Widget(int i) : value_(i) { puts("construct from int"); }
Widget(Widget&&) noexcept { puts("move-ctor"); }
~Widget() { puts("destructor"); };
static Widget make() { return Widget(42); }
};


In this brave new (fictional) world, when a class type is decorated with __attribute__((value_semantic)), the compiler is permitted to elide move-construction or copy-construction operations, no matter in what context they appear: the destination (new) object is always permitted (but never required) to have the same address as the source object. (This would mean that our putses in the code above would not reliably be hit: the compiler would be free to eliminate them, as long as it did so in matched pairs. Please bear in mind that we are not saying that Widget is trivially moveable; it is not. Elision is not about replacing copy with move, or replacing move with memcpy; it is about coalescing source and destination into the same physical object so that moving becomes unnecessary.)

Unfortunately we can never require that this kind of elision happen predictably. Consider this code:

Widget identity(Widget x) { return x; }

Widget y = identity(Widget(42));


The compiler would be encouraged to elide the extra move when the definition of identity is visible in the current translation unit; but it would be impossible for it to elide the extra move if the definition of identity were not visible (because identity absolutely must move from x into the return slot, unless the return slot has the same address as x; but the caller has no idea that the return slot should have the same address as x, since it cannot see the definition of identity).

I am not yet sure, but I think all we care about here is construction, and of course the matching destructions. I can’t see how to get any clever optimization opportunities by eliding calls to operator=:

Widget y(41);  // ???
y = Widget(42);


If Widget were “value-semantic”, would the user legitimately expect the above code to be equivalent to

Widget y(42);


Suppose we give Widget and 42 real names; does our intuition change?

std::unique_lock y(mutexA);
y = std::unique_lock(mutexB);


(And yes, maybe our intuition changes back, if the constructor being elided is specifically the zero-argument constructor; but default-constructing-into-the-empty-state is another rabbit hole down which we will find Opinions, so I’d like to save it for now.)

I have no idea how to express the desired semantics here in standardese. Connor suggested that it might be as simple as saying that expressions of value_semantic type should always be treated as prvalues even when today’s C++ would consider them xvalues. I doubt it’s that simple, though, since we somehow have to introduce flexibility into the semantics; we need “permitted but non-guaranteed elision” to deal with the identity-in-different-translation-unit problem above.

The mainstream of C++ standardization in the last release cycle (2014 to 2017) was all about rigidifying: guaranteed copy elision, guaranteed order of evaluation. Is the time ripe for deregulation? Should we build a super-elider?

And the biggest open question for me: Can we build it — or are the current rules so thoroughly baked into today’s compilers that they wouldn’t be able to exploit the flexibility even if they got the necessary permissions? The proof-of-concept would be an inliner that could optimize

Widget y1 = identity(identity(Widget(42)));  // A
Widget y2(42);                               // B


into the same exact machine instructions. If you’ve got one, I’d love to see it!

Posted 2018-03-29