You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May 2008.

I’ve had several conversations with people who seemed overly proud about 100% code-coverage in their unit tests. Obviously, that’s a good thing: the more test cases, the less likelihood of a latent fault existing in the software. But code coverage has its dark side, too. Take a look at this (extremely contrived) C example:

unsigned int noop(unsigned int x)
    unsigned int y = x << 4;
    return y >> 4;

There are no branches in the code, the cyclomatic complexity is great! In fact, I can get 100% test coverage with a single successful test case:

int main()
    return (noop(5) == 5) ? 0 : 1;

However, there can be branches in the behavior of that function; in this case, based on the overflow rules for integers. Any argument that happens to use the top 4 bits will get those bits truncated, and will fail my unit test. For this simple function, it is possible to rigorously prove the behavior of the function, so everyone can see that a second test case is required:

#include <limits.h>
int main()
    return (noop(5) == 5) && (noop(UINT_MAX) == UINT_MAX) ? 0 : 1

Now the unit test demonstrates a failure, without changing the test coverage at all. For real software systems, the reality is that there are two problems:

  • It may not be obvious to anyone working on the team that there are multiple data-dependent behavioral branches. Thus, even with the best of intentions, 100% coverage from a test-first development team may still allow a sneaky bug to slip through the cracks.
  • In many systems, testing is added after the original development. Suppose a company switches to test-first development, and wants to retroactively add unit tests in order to prevent regressions. Or suppose that the original developer of a large, cryptic codebase is gone, and the maintenance programmer decides that the best way to document the gotchas of the system’s behavior is to write unit tests… Then, later development that accidentally changes those gotchas gets caught by test failures. In any case, test coverage by lines-of-code is the easiest way to measure the “do I have enough tests?” metric. The developer is working as fast as possible to get 100% coverage, to be efficient with his/her time (or the company’s dollar). In a case like this, it is extremely likely that the minimal set of tests that show 100% coverage will fail to test significant bits of important system behavior.

Obviously, a piece of code that is never exercised has a 0% assurance rating. Thus, reasonable code coverage (near-100%) is a necessity for assurance, but in itself, does not always provide a high level of assurance. I suppose this is where some “test-case generation” tools come into play. Being able to generate sets of input that cover the “data-dependent behavioral branching” or being able to measure coverage based on parameters passed can be hugely powerful to deal with this sort of problem.

GCC has flags. A lot of them. I’ve spent a fair amount of time going through the man-page trying to figure out the best “general purpose” set of flags for my own personal development. Here’s what I use as the baseline for my home C++ projects (GCC 4.3.0, linux, old Intel Pentium4) YMMV, especially with third-party tools, since a lot of these settings are

  • C++-only (-Wnon-virtual-dtor)
  • highly opinionated (-Wold-style-casts)
  • likely to break on code that didn’t use it from the get-go (-ansi -pedantic)


Language Features

In my experience, most GCC-isms that have caused issues in the Microsoft and Intel compilers have been catchable by specifying a more strict interpretation of the language standard. -ansi tends to work with most other code I’ve run into, whereas -pedantic oftentimes breaks old code by rejecting stray semicolons such as namespace foo { };.
-std=c++98 or
This may be superfluous given the amount of other settings that I use, but it does clarify to a reader what language features I expect to be using. Plus, it will take a while for GCC to start using C++0x as the default ANSI version, so why wait?
Because of the ANSI specification, I do have to go through extra hoops to specify “Yes, I want certain features of C99 that are not required to be present in C++98”. The only one that regularly comes up is the usage of long long as a data type for sequence ids.
If I’m using <stdint.h> or <inttypes.h> in C++ code, these are required to enable all of the C99 features.


Standard supergroups of warnings that turns on a bunch of basic settings.
Old C code reused literal string constants as storage space for whatever. That’s just plain wrong now.
Using an undefined variable… to define itself. I only ever run into this when I’m refactoring variable names and discover that there are two levels of loops, each with an i.
C++ casts and unions are much easier to grep for in source code, so I avoid C-style casts entirely. My biggest beef is when user-defined datatypes expect users to call cast operators to perform common routines… imagine if std::string used operator const char* instead of c_str()… This looks like an eyesore, and in the case of obscure types, it’s not obvious to a maintenance programmer if it means static_cast (yes, in this case) or reinterpret_cast (segfault due to garbage data) or dynamic_cast (segfault due to NULL string).

printf("the answer-->[%s]\n", (const char*)answer);
Any sort of pointer arithmetic is suspect. I manage to do a lot of pointer-based optimizations without triggering this warning, so I honestly can’t say I remember what it does specifically.
Necessary for -fstrict-aliasing.

Functions like printf will core or (worse) print weird data at run-time if the format arguments don’t match the varargs. I’ve never been too fearful of varargs in C++ (unlike most of the rest of the community), mostly because GCC protects me from my own carelessness in this way.
This requires -O1 or above… it’s a no-brainer. Point out variables that have garbage data.
Find free functions defined in implementation files that probably be either declared in the header or marked as static.

Sometimes method signatures change, and C++ lacks the nice override keyword that C# has to specify “this method only exists to implement the behavior of a virtual method from a parent.” Any way to detect mismatched virtual method overrides is good.
It’s usually (but not always) to declare a class with virtual methods but no virtual destructor. Moreso, I find that it’s also usually an design error to want a class with virtual methods but no virtual destructor, because it usually means some form of static polymorphism is more appropriate.
This one mostly catches stupid cases where I forget to add public to a class declaration. It’s more obvious than weird errors later complaining that the object can’t be instantiated.


Of course, there are certain local cases where -O3 is not optimal, but I find that overall, I’ve never run into a global example of it being measurably worse than -O1 or -Os.
As of GCC 4.3, -ftree-vectorize is built into -O3, so this is not always necessary. For anyone familiar with the happy LOOP VECTORIZED diagnostic from ICC, this gets the same result. From what I’ve seen, ICC is still much better at diagnosing vectorizable loops, and this may not buy you much for non-numerical computing.
This flag tends to raise people’s blood pressures, but I guess I haven’t yet encountered a situation where it bit me (mind you, I don’t do any development outside of x86, so take my opinion with a pinch of naivety). I started turning it on religiously when I was optimizing an undergraduate raytracer project, and discovered a 5-10% improvement. All of the corner cases where -ffast-math causes problems ended up resulting in major failures in the raytracer, and ultimately allowed me to catch subtle bugs easier.
IMO, C-style pointer casting is evil. Maybe I’ve had too much GCC Kool-Aid, but I tend to replace all pointer-casting:

  • Implicit casting (allowing T* to downgrade to char*. Implicit is generally “bad” because it’s hidden, but this tends to only work in obvious places such as memcpy(&dst, &src, sizof(src)).
  • static_cast<T> for something like the C socket API that distinguishes between struct sockaddr and struct sockaddr_in (and the relevant structures are all local stack objects).
  • reinterpret_cast<T> for C-style APIs that pass around void*
  • union everywhere else. GCC seems to deal with unions better than arbitrary casting.
Judicious use of __builting_expect along with block-reordering can remove a lot of branch-related stalls from the fast path. For instance, std::vector::push_back() could be written such that the expected case (size() < capacity()) incurs no branch misprediction and exhibits maximal instruction cache locality. In personal experiments, I’ve seen this make a difference of fivefold or more for very lightweight template containers.

-msse3 (maybe)
Or -march=whatever for your local platform, since native is a recent addition to the GCC syntax. If you know the target platform (and I always do, since all of the software that I’ve ever written has been for personal or in-house use), there’s no reason not to set these flags for a release build. However, there are a few valid reasons to not use this:

  • If you don’t know the target platform, or if there are a variety of target platforms. But it’s probably still good to provide platform-optimized code, since generic i386 instructions are so… ancient. After all, if you weren’t concerned with performance, you wouldn’t be using C++, would you?
  • If you plan on running your software in an emulator. This includes Valgrind, which gives me nice segmentation faults when I use the core2 instruction set. Maybe I need to upgrade my version of Valgrind.
Another machine-specific performance tweak, this actually gives another significant benefit. On most x86 hardware, floating-point computations get done in 80-bit registers, and only truncated to 64 bits (for double) when they round-trip to memory. The net effect is that in certain edge cases, double x = 0.1; double y = x; assert(x == y) can result in an assertion failure due to lost significant figures. You can force all floating-point calculations to round-trip through memory with -ffloat-store, but that incurs a significant performance penalty (and if you weren’t concerned with performance you wouldn’t be using C++, would you?). However, from what I have read, using SSE instructions mitigates this issue entirely.
This replaces all str{cpy,len,...} and mem{cpy,move,set} library calls with GCC builtins, which generally turn into multibyte assignments or machine-specific string instructions. I’ve seen it turn a strcpy into several movl instructions, with the string data interpreted as an array of unsigned integers. Neat. Usually this is faster (due to the removal of a function call), but it doesn’t always speed up code: the extra instructions may increase instruction cache misses, which definitely affects aggressively inlined blocks.

Makefile Integration

tells the compiler to generate Makefile dependency-information as a side effect of compilation. This is a requirement for iterative development, otherwise the only way to get a correct build is to make clean every iteration.
-MF [filename]
Usually my Makefile rule for compilation looks like this:

%.o : %.cxx
    $(CXX) -c -o $@ $< -MMD -MF $(basename $@).dep $(CXXFLAGS)
include $(wildcard *.dep)

With that, foo.cxx produces object file foo.o and Makefile dependency rule file foo.dep. I always find it best to use GCC for the dependency generation rather than a separate step (such as the makedepend program or some batshit insane sed scripts that I’ve seen littering some Makefiles, probably a relic from before the compiler generated this information). GCC itself produces a 100% accurate result and the generated rule has all pathing information set correctly as well, which other tools may not set up correctly. Add to that tools like makedepend modifies the Makefile itself by default, which adds a lot of unnecessary churn in the revision control software.


Supposedly this makes compiling and linking faster by staying in memory instead of storing all intermediate representations in temporary files… I haven’t ever timed it, but I type it out of habit.
If I want to examine a particular piece of code, I’ll typically add this as a temporary compilation flag so that the compiler saves all preprocessed output (foo.ii) and generated assembler (foo.s). Note that this nullifies the -pipe setting.
If I want to examine assembler but see code generated inline with it, I will specify this flag and modify my Makefile rule to redirect output to $(basename $@).s. This gives more readable results than -save-temps and doesn’t affect -pipe.


Here’s a snippet out of one of my Makefiles that includes most or all of these settings:

CXX = g++ -Wa,-a -pipe
CC = gcc -Wa,a -pipe
LD = g++ -pipe

WARN = error all extra write-strings init-self cast-align cast-qual \
       pointer-arith strict-aliasing format=2 uninitialized \
       missing-declarations no-long-long no-unused-parameter
CXXWARN = overloaded-virtual non-virtual-dtor ctor-dtor-privacy
    $(addprefix -f,strict-aliasing reorder-blocks) \
    $(addprefix -m,arch=native sse2 fpmath=sse inline-all-stringops) \

CXXFLAGS = -ansi -pedantic -std=c++0x -ggdb \
           $(addprefix -W,$(WARN) $(CXXWARN)) $(OPTIM)
CFLAGS = -ansi -pedantic -std=c99 -ggdb \
           $(addprefix -W,$(WARN)) $(OPTIM)
LDFLAGS = -lrt

define DO_LINK
$(LD) -o $@ $^ $(LDFLAGS)

$(CXX) -c -o $@ $< $(basename $@).s

$(CC) -c -o $@ $< $(basename $@).s

Anyone who has used GNU Make on a nontrivial project surely has at some point wanted to separate inputs from outputs and intermediates. For example, take a C++ shared library using GCC (using -MMD to autogenerate GNU make dependency information):

  • baz.cxx
  • bar.cxx
  • baz.o
  • baz.dep
  • bar.o
  • bar.dep
  • (symlink to
  • (symlink to

First, anyone who hasn’t already should read How Not to Use VPATH. Now, suppose that I want to put intermediates into $(CURDIR)/tmp and outputs into $(CURDIR)/lib, and those directories must be created as a part of the build. That means that at some point in time, the build script needs to execute mkdir tmp and mkdir lib, because GCC will not auto-create them. These are the solutions I’ve come upon (aside from the obvious but useless “don’t use make”):

  1. Order the rules so that the mkdirs occur before the g++s. Of course, this breaks parallel builds, so it’s not really an option. But it’s the most obvious solution, and it doesn’t break in serial builds.
  2. Modify the rule to depend upon the directory (tmp/%.o : %.cxx tmp). There’s only one call to mkdir, but now we get a new sort of error. Whenever the directory gets modified, it triggers recompilation of all of the objects!
  3. Make the compilation rule (tmp/%.o : %.cxx) execute the mkdir before executing the g++. There’ll be a lot of spurious calls to mkdir, but it should never break.
  4. make a local g++ wrapper script that creates the directory before compiling. Invoke the wrapper script from the Makefile instead of invoking the raw compiler.

Personally, I don’t think that any of those solutions is that great. The problem, as I see it, is the combination of how Make handles dependencies (by modified-timestamp) and how directory timestamps work on Linux (if you add or remove files, it “modifies” the directory). I’ve dealt with it using solutions #1-3, but I haven’t tried #4. I suppose for a large project that #4 isn’t such a bad idea… you can wrap up all of your system-wide rules into it, and then the make output gets shorter, as well. Take this as an example:


while read arg ; do
    if [ "$arg" = "-o" ] ; then
        read outdir
        mkdir -p $(dirname "$outdir")
done < <(echo "$@")

g++ -c -ansi -pedantic -std=c++98 \
    -O3 -m{arch=core2,sse2,fpmath=sse,inline-all-stringops} \
    -W{all,extra,format=2,write-strings,init-self,error} \
    -W{cast-align,cast-qual,pointer-arith,old-style-cast,overloaded-virtual} \
    -f{omit-frame-pointer,strict-aliasing,fast-math,tracer} \
    -I{/usr/local/include,/usr/java/jdk1.5/include,/usr/java/jdk1.5/include/linux} \

Ok, now I’m convinced. I do like #4… It seems like a lot of extra work for small one-off projects, but it’s a marginal cost for a larger environment (where you end up doing more complex tasks like code generation, combining disparate projects into a single build location, automated source-control integration).

This looks like a title

and i bet this text will display on my main page. If i had a theme song, I would write the lyrics here.