# What is the “vector pessimization”?

I always say that you should mark your move constructors noexcept, or else you get the vector pessimization. But I haven’t had a blog post explicitly on the topic… until now.

## Part 1: Geometric resizing

Recall that std::vector<T> is a dynamically allocated (resizeable) array: it heap-allocates enough space for a bunch of contiguous Ts, and exposes both its current .size() and its current total .capacity() (which may at any given time be greater than its size, and usually is). When you .push_back a new element onto the end of a vector v, v won’t need to allocate any more storage unless v.size() == v.capacity().

Furthermore, whenever v does reallocate its buffer of Ts, it always allocates twice as much as it needs: If its old size was 16 elements, it’ll allocate capacity for 32 elements. If its old size was 32, it’ll allocate 64. And so on.

Actually (Godbolt), each major library vendor does this slightly differently. GNU libstdc++ uses the algorithm above; libc++ bases its math on the old capacity rather than the old size; and Microsoft’s STL uses a growth factor of 1.5 instead of 2. But the result is effectively the same.

Each time v reallocates its buffer, it spends more and more time copying data from the old buffer into the new buffer. But, because capacity keeps increasing in a geometric progression, it takes longer and longer to reach the next reallocation. These two factors balance each other out, and we say that v.push_back takes constant time on average — it is “amortized constant time” or “amortized $$O(1)$$.”

## Part 2: The strong exception guarantee

Let’s look closer at that buffer-reallocating operation. Its job is to allocate a new buffer, transfer the data from the old buffer to the new buffer, and then repoint v’s data pointer at the new buffer and deallocate the old one.

std::vector is part of the C++98 STL, and C++98 didn’t know anything about move semantics. So of course the “transfer” step here, in the original C++98 vector, was always done using T’s copy constructor. Each T in the old buffer was copied down into the new buffer; then, the pointer was repointed (as already shown in the diagram above), the old Ts were destroyed, and the old buffer was deallocated.

This operation has the nice property of providing the strong exception guarantee. There are several points here where an exception might be thrown: The memory allocation itself might throw. Any one of the copy operations might throw. But, if any step threw an exception, we could simply rewind: destroy any already-constructed copies, deallocate the new buffer, keep v’s data pointer pointed at the old buffer. The old buffer still contains all the user’s old data, because our making copies of that data didn’t modify it. So we have the strong exception guarantee: If push_back throws an exception, then all your data is still there; it’s as if the push_back operation never happened.

## Part 3: Move semantics change the picture

C++11 gave us the move constructor as an optimization of the copy constructor. The move constructor T(T&&) takes an rvalue reference to a T whose useful lifetime is over, and can move out of that T, cheaply pilfering its data members instead of expensively making disjoint copies of them.

During vector reallocation, the Ts in the vector’s old buffer are essentially at the end of their useful lifetimes. If the copy succeeds, we’re just going to destroy them. So, you might think we could have the vector move out of those Ts, like this:

Here, the green boxes indicate T objects containing the user’s data, and red boxes indicate T objects that (still exist, but) have been pilfered of their contents and left in a “moved-from state.” This way clearly wastes less time expensively copying the user’s data!

But using move instead of copy causes us to lose the strong exception guarantee. Suppose an exception is thrown (by T’s move constructor) at the point illustrated in the diagram — during the move of the second or third element. We’d like to undo the operation and roll back to the user’s original vector, but we can’t: we’ve already moved out of the first two elements! If we destroy and deallocate the new buffer at this point, the user will get back only some of their original data.

Could we use swap to get the user’s green data back into the old buffer? In theory, swap never needs to throw. But in practice, no, because C++ doesn’t treat swap as a primitive operation. If T’s move constructor throws, then you can bet std::swap<T> will also throw, because std::swap<T> is implemented in terms of move.

Notice that this lack-of-rollback is a problem only if T(T&&) throws an exception. If vector had some way of assuring itself that T(T&&) would never throw, then we’d never need to roll back, and so it would be perfectly safe to use T(T&&) instead of T(const T&).

Or, if we knew that T was trivially relocatable, we could use relocation; but again, C++ doesn’t currently understand relocation as a primitive operation.

## Part 4: Move-constructors that throw

You might say: “Why didn’t C++11 just mandate that move-constructors must never throw? We could have made non-throwing-ness part of what it means to be a move-constructor. After all, writing a move constructor is optional. If you can’t write a non-throwing move constructor, just don’t write one at all!” But this doesn’t work either.

Consider std::list<int>. It’s a heap-allocated linked list, where lst.begin() gives you an iterator into the first heap-allocated node of the list, and lst.end() gives you a one-past-the-end iterator to the last-plus-one’th node of the list. There are two practical approaches as to where that last-plus-one’th node is stored. libstdc++ and libc++ store a “dummy node” inside the memory footprint of the std::list object itself. But Microsoft’s STL (based on Dinkumware’s) stores an extra “sentinel node” out there on the heap with the rest of the list’s nodes. So, on MSVC, both std::list’s default constructor and its move constructor need to allocate a sentinel node, and that memory allocation might (hypothetically) throw an exception.

“So? If std::list can’t be nothrow movable, maybe it shouldn’t be movable at all.” Well, suppose Microsoft’s std::list didn’t define any move constructor. You’d still be able to write auto lst2 = std::move(lst); — it would just end up calling the copy constructor instead. (See “‘Universal reference’ or ‘forwarding reference’?” (2022-02-02).) That was kind of the original point of treating the move constructor as merely another overload of the copy constructor.

Furthermore, we really do want std::list to have a move constructor. Move-constructing a 100-element std::list might require heap-allocating one sentinel node, but copy-constructing that 100-element std::list would require heap-allocating 101 nodes! Move semantics are still a huge win, even if we sometimes have to make them potentially throwing.

“Could we just force Microsoft to rewrite their std::list implementation to match libstdc++ and libc++?” In theory, yes. In practice, no, a big important vendor isn’t going to break their ABI just because you asked nicely. (Also remember this was circa 2003–2009 we’re talking about, not 2022.)

Okay, so, C++11 really did need to admit the possibility of throwing move constructors. So vector’s reallocation operation needed a way to distinguish throwing from non-throwing move constructors. Basically vector needed to do this:

if constexpr (is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<T>) {
// move in a loop
} else {
// copy in a loop, and roll back on exception
}


Implementing is_nothrow_move_constructible was a problem. How do we solve a problem in C++? We add a keyword.

## Part 5: noexcept

The solution adopted in C++11 was to introduce a new keyword: noexcept. Functions not marked noexcept (i.e., most functions) can throw exceptions. Functions marked noexcept promise that they’ll never throw exceptions. In fact, it’s not only a promise: it’s also a firewall. Exceptions thrown from lower levels will never propagate out past a noexcept; they’ll slam into it and std::terminate the program.

So now vector’s reallocation operation can just ask whether T(T&&) is noexcept. If it is, then vector reallocation will use move-construction and be efficient. If not, then vector reallocation will use copy-construction and be just as slow as C++98 — but preserve the strong exception guarantee, in the case that an exception ever actually is thrown.

noexcept is propagated in the natural way by (implicitly or explicitly) defaulted members:

struct A { A(A&&); };
struct B { B(B&&) noexcept; };
struct JustB { B b; JustB(JustB&&) = default; };
struct AB { A a; B b; };

static_assert(!std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<A>);
static_assert(std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<B>);
static_assert(std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<JustB>);
static_assert(!std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<AB>);


AB’s implicitly defaulted move constructor is potentially throwing, because moving the a member might throw. JustB’s explicitly defaulted move constructor is noexcept, because it merely needs to move the B.

## Conclusion: The vector pessimization

If you write a user-defined move constructor for your own type, no matter what it does, if it has a body other than =default, you must mark it noexcept.

struct Instrument {
int n_;
std::string s_;

Instrument(const Instrument&) = default;

// WRONG!!
Instrument(Instrument&& rhs)
: n_(std::exchange(rhs.n_, 0)),
s_(std::move(s_))
{}

// RIGHT!!
Instrument(Instrument&& rhs) noexcept
: n_(std::exchange(rhs.n_, 0)),
s_(std::move(s_))
{}
};


If you accidentally leave off the noexcept, then you’ll get the vector pessimization: every time you reallocate a vector<Instrument>, it will expensively make copies instead of cheaply moving.

Worse, sometimes — especially on MSVC, using Microsoft’s STL implementation — you’ll get the vector pessimization even on a Rule-of-Zero class. This is because non-noexceptness propagates in the natural way. Having a single non-nothrow-movable data member is all it takes to turn a Rule-of-Zero class non-nothrow-movable itself.

struct Widget {
std::list<int> data_;
explicit Widget(int n) : data_(n) {}
};


On MSVC, Widget will have a non-noexcept defaulted move constructor and therefore get the vector pessimization: vector<Widget> will do pessimal, copy-constructing reallocations. To fix this, you can (and arguably, should) declare explicitly defaulted special members:

struct Gadget {
std::list<int> data_;
explicit Gadget(int n) : data_(n) {}

};


This tells the compiler, “I want Gadget’s move constructor to do the default thing, but I also want it to be noexcept.” So we avoid the vector pessimization, as shown in this Godbolt benchmark.

Notice that if the move constructor of std::list ever actually runs out of memory and throws std::bad_alloc from inside Gadget(Gadget&&), then that exception will slam into our artificial noexcept firewall and terminate your program. That’s if you run out of memory. If this is a problem for your program, then you might just have to take the performance hit of the vector pessimization. For most programs, though, std::bad_alloc isn’t a real concern — and the speed of vector::push_back might be!

This is why I recommend the following guidelines:

• If your type has a user-defined move constructor, you should always declare that move constructor noexcept.

• If your Rule-of-Zero type has any non-nothrow-movable data members (especially common on MSVC), you should consider giving it a defaulted move constructor explicitly marked noexcept.

• If nothing else, you should be aware of the vector pessimization: know that std::vector<T> can turn moves into copies, during reallocation, if and only if T(T&&) hasn’t been marked noexcept.

For another example of an implicitly generated special member doing arguably the wrong thing, see:

For a fantastic amount of detail on the history of noexcept, written literally as the feature evolved, see this post from way back in 2011:

Posted 2022-08-26