Skip to main content

zapcc C++ compilation speed against gcc 5.4 and clang 3.9

A week ago, I compared the compilation time performance of zapcc against gcc-4.9.3 and clang-3.7. On debug builds, zapcc was about 2 times faster than gcc and 3 times faster than clang. In this post, I'm going to try some more recent compilers, namely gcc 5.4 and clang 3.9 on the same project. If you want more information on zapcc, read the previous posts, this post will concentrate on results.

Again, I use my Expression Template Library (ETL). This is a purely header-only library with lots of templates. I'm going to compile the full test cases.

The results of the two articles are not directly comparable, since they were obtained on two different computers. The one on which the present results are done has a less powerful and only 16Go of RAM compared to the 32Go of RAM of my build machine. Also take into account that that the present results were obtained on a Desktop machine, there can be some perturbations from background tasks.

Just like on the previous results, it does not help using more threads than physical cores, therefore, the results were only computed on up to 4 cores on this machine.

The link time is not taken into account on the results.

Debug build

Let's start with the result of the debug build.

Compiler -j1 -j2 -j4
g++-5.4.0 469s 230s 130s
clang++-3.9 710s 371s 218s
zapcc++ 214s 112s 66s
Speedup VS Clang 3.31 3.31 3.3
Speedup VS GCC 2.19 2.05 1.96

The results are almost the same as the previous test. zapcc is 3.3 times faster to compile than Clang and around 2 times faster than GCC. It seems that GCC 5.4 is a bit faster than GCC 4.9.3 while clang 3.9 is a bit slower than clang 3.7, but nothing terribly significant.

Overall, for debug builds, zapcc can bring a very significant improvement to your compile times.

Release build

Let's see what is the status of Release builds. Since the results are comparable between the numbers of threads, the results here are just for one thread.

This is more time consuming since a lot of optimizations are enabled and more features from ETL are enabled as well.

Compiler -j1
g++-5.4.0 782s
clang++-3.9 960s
zapcc++ 640s
Speedup VS Clang 1.5
Speedup VS GCC 1.22

On a release build, the speedups are much less interesting. Nevertheless, they are still significant. zapcc is still 1.2 times faster than gcc and 1.5 times faster than clang. Then speedup against clang 3.9 is significantly higher than it was on my experiment with clang 3.7, it's possible that clang 3.9 is slower or simply has new optimization passes.


The previous conclusion still holds with modern version of compilers: zapcc is much faster than other compilers on Debug builds of template heavy code. More than 3 times faster than clang-3.9 and about 2 times faster than gcc-5.4. Since it's based on clang, there should not be any issue compiling projects that already compile with a recent clang. Even though the speedups are less interesting on a release build, it is still significantly, especially compared against clang.

I'm really interested in finding out what will be the pricing for zapcc once out of the beta or if they will be able to get even faster!

For the comparison with gcc 4.9.3 and clang 3.7, you can have a look at this article.

If you want more information about zapcc, you can go to the official website of zapcc


New design: Faster and mobile compatible

I've finally taken the time to improve the design of the website!

The site was becoming slower and slower, the design was not responsive at all and was an horror on mobile.

I've changed the design to focus more on content and removed superfluous things such as the Google profile or slow things such as the 3D tag cloud. Moreover, the design is now responsive again. It was a matter of removing a lot of bad things I did in the CSS. Instead of having a vertical and an horizontal bars, I now have only one vertical bar with both the navigation and a bit more information. With these changes, the design is now also working on mobile phone! It's about time.

Moreover, I've also spent quite some time working on the speed of the website. For this, I've bundled most of the JS and CSS files together and reduced them. Moreover, the static files are now hosted and cached by CloudFlare. I've also removed the 3D tag cloud which was quite slow. The Google API usage for the Google profile badge were also quite slow. Overall, the index page is now really fast. The article pages are also much faster but it's not perfect, especially because of Disqus that does tons of requests and redirects everywhere. I've also got rid of the Disqus ads which were really insignificant in the end. It may take a while for the ads to disappear according to Disqus.

I know that it's still not perfect, but I hope that user experience on the blog is now improved for all readers and now article can be read on mobile normally. I'll try to continue monitoring the speed and usability of the website to see if I can improve it further in the coming days.

If you have any issue on the updated website, don't hesitate to let me know either by commenting on this post or sending me an email (check the Contact page).


zapcc - a faster C++ compiler

Update: For a comparison against more modern compiler versions, you can read: zapcc C++ compilation speed against gcc 5.4 and clang 3.9

I just joined the private beta program of zapcc. Zapcc is a c++ compiler, based on Clang which aims at being much faster than other C++ compilers. How they are doing this is using a caching server that saves some of the compiler structures, which should speed up compilation a lot. The private beta is free, but once the compiler is ready, it will be a commercial compiler.

Every C++ developer knows that compilation time can quickly be an issue when programs are getting very big and especially when working with template-heavy code.

To benchmark this new compiler, I use my Expression Template Library (ETL). This is a purely header-only library with lots of templates. There are lots of test cases which is what I'm going to compile. I'm going to compare against Clang-3.7 and gcc-4.9.3.

I have configured zapcc to let is use 2Go RAM per caching server, which is the maximum allowed. Moreover, I killed the servers before each tests.

Debug build

Let's start with a debug build. In that configuration, there is no optimization going on and several of the features of the library (GPU, BLAS, ...) are disabled. This is the fastest way to compile ETL. I gathered this result on a 4 core, 8 threads, Intel processor, with an SSD.

The following table presents the results with different number of threads and the difference of zapcc compared to the other compilers:

Compiler -j1 -j2 -j4 -j6 -j8
g++-4.9.3 350s 185s 104s 94s 91s
clang++-3.7 513s 271s 153s 145s 138s
zapcc++ 158s 87s 47s 44s 42s
Speedup VS Clang 3.24 3.103 3.25 3.29 3.28
Speedup VS GCC 2.21 2.12 2.21 2.13 2.16

The result is pretty clear! zapcc is around three times faster than Clang and around two times faster than GCC. This is pretty impressive!

For those that think than Clang is always faster than GCC, keep in mind that this is not the case for template-heavy code such as this library. In all my tests, Clang has always been slower and much memory hungrier than GCC on template-heavy C++ code. And sometimes the difference is very significant.

Interestingly, we can also see that going past the physical cores is not really interesting on this computer. On some computer, the speedups are interesting, but not on this one. Always benchmark!

Release build

We have seen the results on a debug build, let's now compare on something a bit more timely, a release build with all options of ETL enabled (GPU, BLAS, ...), which should make it significantly longer to compile.

Again, the table:

Compiler -j1 -j2 -j4 -j6 -j8
g++-4.9.3 628s 336s 197s 189s 184s
clang++-3.7 663s 388s 215s 212s 205s
zapcc++ 515s 281s 173s 168s 158s
Speedup VS Clang 1.28 1.38 1.24 1.26 1.29
Speedup VS GCC 1.21 1.30 1.13 1.12 1.16

This time, we can see that the difference is much lower. Zapcc is between 1.2 and 1.4 times faster than Clang and between 1.1 and 1.3 times faster than GCC. This shows that most of the speedups from zapcc are in the front end of the compiler. This is not a lot but still significant over long builds, especially if you have few threads where the absolute difference would be higher.

We can also observe that Clang is now almost on par with GCC which shows that optimization is faster in Clang while front and backend is faster in gcc.

You also have to keep in mind that zapcc memory usage is higher than Clang because of all the caching. Moreover, the server are still up in between compilations, so this memory usage stays between builds, which may not be what you want.

As for runtime, I have not seem any significant difference in performance between the clang version and the zapcc. According to the official benchmarks and documentation, there should not be any difference in that between zapcc and the version of clang on which zapcc is based.

Incremental build

Normally, zapcc should shine at incremental building, but I was unable to show any speedup when changing a single without killing the zapcc servers. Maybe I did something wrong in my usage of zapcc.


In conclusion, we can see that zapcc is always faster than both GCC and Clang, on my template-heavy library. Moreover, on debug builds, it is much faster than any of the two compilers, being more than 2 times faster than GCC and more than 3 times faster than clang. This is really great. Moreover, I have not see any issue with the tool so far, it can seamlessly replace Clang without problem.

It's a bit weird that you cannot allocate more than 2Go to the zapcc servers.

For a program, that's really impressive. I hope that they are continuing the good work and especially that this motivates other compilers to improve the speed of compilation (especially of templates).

If you want more information, you can go to the official website of zapcc


Blazing fast unit test compilation with doctest 1.1

You may remember my quest for faster compilation times. I had made several changes to the Catch test framework macros in order to save some compilation at the expense of my test code looking a bit less nice:

REQUIRE(a == 9); //Before
REQUIRE_EQUALS(a, 9); //After

The first line is a little bit better, but using several optimizations, I was able to dramatically change the compilation time of the test cases of ETL. In the end, I don't think that the difference between the two lines justifies the high overhead in compilation times.


doctest is a framework quite similar to Catch but that claims to be much lighter. I tested doctest 1.0 early on, but at this point it was actually slower than Catch and especially slower than my versions of the macro.

Today, doctest 1.1 was released with promises of being even lighter than before and providing several new ways of speeding up compilation. If you want the results directly, you can take a look at the next section.

First of all, this new version improved the basic macros to make expression decomposition faster. When you use the standard REQUIRE macro, the expression is composed by using several template techniques and operator overloading. This is really slow to compile. By removing the need for this decomposition, the fast Catch macros are much faster to compile.

Moreover, doctest 1.1 also introduces CHECK_EQ that does not any expression decomposition. This is close to what I did in my macros expect that it is directly integrated into the framework and preserves all its features. It is also possible to bypass the expression checking code by using FAST_CHECK_EQ macro. In that case, the exceptions are not captured. Finally, a new configuration option is introduced (DOCTEST_CONFIG_SUPER_FAST_ASSERTS) that removes some features related to automatic debugger breaks. Since I don't use the debugger features and I don't need to capture exception everywhere (it's sufficient for me that the test fails completely if an exception is thrown), I'm more than eager to use these new features.


For evaluation, I have compiled the complete test suite of ETL, with 1 thread, using gcc 4.9.3 with various different options, starting from Catch to doctest 1.1 with all compilation time features. Here are the results, in seconds:

Version Time VS Catch VS Fast Catch VS doctest 1.0
Catch 724.22      
Fast Catch 464.52 -36%    
doctest 1.0 871.54 +20% +87%  
doctest 1.1 614.67 -16% +32% -30%
REQUIRE_EQ 493.97 -32% +6% -43%
FAST_REQUIRE_EQ 439.09 -39% -6% -50%
SUPER_FAST_ASSERTS 411.11 -43% -12% -53%

As you can see, doctest 1.1 is much faster to compile than doctest 1.0! This is really great news. Moreover, it is already 16% faster than Catch. When all the features are used, doctest is 12% faster than my stripped down versions of Catch macros (and 43% faster than Catch standard macros). This is really cool! It means that I don't have to do any change in the code (no need to strip macros myself) and I can gain a lot of compilation time compared to the bare Catch framework.

I really think the author of doctest did a great job with the new version. Although this was not of as much interest for me, there are also a lot of other changes in the new version. You can consult the changelog if you want more information.


Overall, doctest 1.1 is much faster to compile than doctest 1.0. Moreover, it offers very fast macros for test assertions that are much faster to compile than Catch versions and even faster than the versions I created myself to reduce compilation time. I really thing this is a great advance for doctest. When compiling with all the optimizations, doctest 1.1 saves me 50 seconds in compilation time compared to the fast version of Catch macro and more than 5 minutes compared to the standard version of Catch macros.

I'll probably start using doctest on my development machine. For now, I'll keep Catch as well since I need it to generate the unit test reports in XML format for Sonarqube. Once this feature appears in doctest, I'll probably drop Catch from ETL and DLL

If you need blazing fast compilation times for your unit tests, doctest 1.1 is probably the way to go.


Short review of Bullseye Coverage

Bullseye is a commercial Code Coverage analyzer. It is fully-featured with an export to HTML, to XML and even a specific GUI to see the application.It costs about 800$, with a renewal fee of about 200$ per year.

I'm currently using gcov and passing the results to Sonar. This works well, but there are several problems. First, I need to use gcovr to generate the XML file, that means two tools. Then, gcov has no way to merge coverage reports. In my tests of ETL, I have seven different profiles being tested and I need the overall coverage report. lcov has a merge feature but it is slow as hell (it takes longer to merge the coverage files than to compile and run the complete test suite seven times...). For now, I'm using a C++ program that I wrote to combine the XML files or a Python script that does that, but neither are perfect and it needs maintenance. Finally, it's impossible to exclude some code from the coverage report (there is code that isn't meant to be executed (exceptional code)). For now, I'm using yet another C++ program that I wrote to do this from comments in code.

Bullseye does have all these feature, so I got an evaluation license online and tried this tool and wrote a short review of it.


The usage is pretty simple. You put the coverage executables in your PATH variable and activate coverage globally. Then, we you compile, the compiler calls will be intercepted and a coverage file will be generated. When the compilation is done, run the program and the coverage measurements will be filled.

The coverage results can then be exported to HTML (or XML) or visualized using the CoverageBrowser tool:

Screenshot of Bullseye main coverage view

The main view of the Bullseye tool code coverage results

It's a pretty good view of the coverage result. You have a breakdown by folders, by file, by function and finally by condition. You can view directly the source code:

Screenshot of Bullseye source code coverage view

The source view of the Bullseye tool code coverage results

If you want to exclude some code from your coverage reports, you can use a pragma:

switch (n) {
    case 1: one++; break;
    case 2: two++; break;
    case 3: three++; break;
    #pragma BullseyeCoverage off
    default: abort();
    #pragma BullseyeCoverage on

So that the condition won't be set as uncovered.

As for the coverage, it's pretty straightforward. For example:

covmerge -c -ffinal.cov sse.cov avx.cov

and it's really fast. Unfortunately, the merging is only done at the function level, not at the statement or at the condition level. This is a bit disappointing, especially from a commercial tool. Nevertheless, it works well.


To conclude, Bullseye seems to be a pretty good tool. It has more features than standard gcov coverage and all features are well integrated together. I have only covered the features I was interested in, there are plenty of other things you can look at on the official website.

However, if you don't need the extra features such as the visualizer (or use something like Sonar for this), or the merge or code excluding, it's probably not worth paying the price for it. In my case, since the merge is not better than my C++ tool (both do almost the same and my tool does some basic line coverage merging as well) and I don't need the visualizer, I won't pay the price for it. Moreover, they don't have student or open source licensing, therefore, I'll continue with my complicated toolchain :)


Expression Templates Library (ETL) 1.0

I've just released the first official version of my Expression Templates Library (ETL for short): The version 1.0.

Until now, I was using a simple rolling release model, but I think it's now time to switch to some basic versioning. The project is now at a stable state.

ETL 1.0 has the following main features:

  • Smart Expression Templates
  • Matrix and vector (runtime-sized and compile-time-sized)
  • Simple element-wise operations
  • Reductions (sum, mean, max, ...)
  • Unary operations (sigmoid, log, exp, abs, ...)
  • Matrix multiplication
  • Convolution (1D and 2D and higher variations)
  • Max Pooling
  • Fast Fourrier Transform
  • Use of SSE/AVX to speed up operations
  • Use of BLAS/MKL/CUBLAS/CUFFT/CUDNN libraries to speed up operations
  • Symmetric matrix adapter (experimental)
  • Sparse matrix (experimental)


Here is an example of expressions in ETL:

etl::fast_matrix<float, 2, 2, 2> a = {1.1, 2.0, 5.0, 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 5.0, 1.0};
etl::fast_matrix<float, 2, 2, 2> b = {2.5, -3.0, 4.0, 1.0, 2.5, -3.0, 4.0, 1.0};
etl::fast_matrix<float, 2, 2, 2> c = {2.2, 3.0, 3.5, 1.0, 2.2, 3.0, 3.5, 1.0};

etl::fast_matrix<float, 2, 2, 2> d(2.5 * ((a >> b) / (log(a) >> abs(c))) / (1.5 * scale(a, sign(b)) / c) + 2.111 / log(c));

Or another I'm using in my neural networks library:

h = etl::sigmoid(b + v * w)

In that case, the vector-matrix multiplication will be executed using a BLAS kernel (if ETL is configured correclty) and the assignment, the sigmoid and the addition will be automatically vectorized to use either AVX or SSE depending on the machine.

Or with a convolutional layer and a ReLU activation function:

etl::reshape<1, K, NH1, NH2>(h_a) = etl::conv_4d_valid_flipped(etl::reshape<1, NC, NV1, NV2>(v_a), w);
h = max(b_rep + h_a, 0.0);

This will automatically be computed either with NVIDIA CUDNN (if available) or with optimized SSE/AVX kernels.

For more information, you can take a look at the Reference on the wiki.

Next version

For the next version, I'll focus on several things:

  • Improve matrix-matrix multiplication kernels when BLAS is not available. There is a lot of room for improvement here
  • Complete support for symmetric matrices (currently experimental)
  • Maybe some new adapters such as Hermitian matrices
  • GPU improvements for some operations that can be done entirely on GPU
  • New convolution performanceimprovements
  • Perhaps more complete parallel support for some implementations
  • Drop some compiler support to use full C++14 support

Download ETL

You can download ETL on Github. If you only interested in the 1.0 version, you can look at the Releases pages or clone the tag 1.0. There are several branches:

  • master Is the eternal development branch, may not always be stable
  • stable Is a branch always pointing to the last tag, no development here

For the future release, there always will tags pointing to the corresponding commits. I'm not following the git flow way, I'd rather try to have a more linear history with one eternal development branch, rather than an useless develop branch or a load of other branches for releases.

Don't hesitate to comment this post if you have any comment on this library or any question. You can also open an Issue on Github if you have a problem using this library or propose a Pull Request if you have any contribution you'd like to make to the library.

Hope this may be useful to some of you :)


Asgard: Home Automation project

I have updated my asgard project to make it finally useful for me, so I figured I'd present the project now.

Asgard is my project of home automation based on a Raspberry Pi. I started this project after Ninja Blocks kickstarter company went down and I was left with useless sensors. So I figured why not have fun creating my own :P I know there are some other projects out there that are pretty good, but I wanted to do some more low level stuff for once, so what the hell.

Of course, everything is written in C++, no surprise here. The project is built upon a server / drivers architecture. The drivers and the server are talking via network sockets, so they can be on different machines. The server is displaying the data it got on a web interface and also provide a way to trigger actions of drivers either from the web interface or through the integrated rules engine. The data are stored in a database, accessed with CPPSqlite3 (probably going to be replaced by sqlcpp11) and the web server is handled with mongoose (with a c++ interface).

I must mention that most of the web part of the project was made by a student of mine, Stéphane Ly, who work on it as part of his study.

Here is a picture of the Raspberry Pi system (not very pretty ;) ):

Asgard automation system hardware

I plan to try to fit at least some of it on a nicer box with nicer cables and such. Moreover, I also plan to add real antennas to the RF transmitter and receiver, but I haven't received them so far.


asgard support several sensors:

  • DHT11 Temperature/Humdity Sensor
  • WT450 Temperature/Humdity Sensor
  • RF Button
  • IR Remote
  • CPU Temperature Sensor

You can see the sensors data displayed on the web interface:

Asgard automation system home page


There are currently a few actions provided by the drivers:

  • Wake-On-Lan a computer by its MAC Address
  • ITT-1500 smart plugs ON and OFF
  • Kodi actions: Pause / Play / Next / Previous on Kodi

Here are the rules engine:

Asgard automation system rules page

My home automation

I'm currently using this system to monitor the temperature in my appartment. Nothing great so far because I don't have enough sensors yet. And now, I'm also using a wireless button to turn on my power socket, wait 2 seconds and then power on my Kodi Home Theater with wake on lan.

It's nothing fancy so far, but it's already better than what I had with Ninja Blocks, except for the ugly hardware ;).


There are still tons of work on the project and on integration in my home.

  • I'm really dissatisfied with the WT450 sensor, I've ordered new Oregon sensors to try to do better.
  • I've ordered a few new sensors: Door intrusion detector and motion detector
  • The rules system needs to be improve to support multiple conditions
  • I plan to add a simple state system to the asgard server
  • There are a lot of refactorings necessary in the code and

However, I don't know when I'll work on this again, my work on this project is pretty episodic to say the least.


The code is, as always, available on Github. There are multiple repositories: all asgard repositories. It's not that much code for now, about 2000 lines of code, but some of it may be useful. If you plan to use the system, keep in mind that it was never tested out of my environment and that there is no documentation so far, but don't hesitate to open Issues on Github if you have questions or post a comment here.


Update: Thor, Thesis and Publications

Since it's been a real while since the last post I've written here, I wanted to write a short status update.

I had to serve one month in the army, which does not help at all for productivity :P Since the update to Boost Spirit X3, I haven't worked on my eddic compiler again, but I've switched back to my operating system project: thor. I'm having a lot of fun with it again and it's in much better state than before.

We also have been very productive on the publication side, with four new publications this year in various conferences. I'll update the blog when the proceedings are published. I'll be going to ICANN 2016 and ANNPR 2016 next week and probably to ICFHR in October. And of course, I'll go back to Meeting C++ in November :) As for my thesis, it's finally going great, I've started writing regularly and it's taking form!


My project Thor Operating System now has much more features than before:

  • 64bit operating system
  • Preemptive Multiprocessing
  • Keyboard / Mouse driver
  • Full ACPI support with ACPICA
  • Read/Write ATA driver
  • FAT32 file system support
  • HPET/RTC/PIT drivers
  • Basic PCI support
  • Multi stage booting with FAT32

Since last time, I've fixed tons of bug in the system. Although there are still some culprit, it's much more stable than before. They were a lot of bugs in the scheduler with loads of race conditions. I hope I've working through most of them now.

I'm currently working on the network stack. I'm able to receive and send packets using the Realtek 8139 card. I have working support for Ethernet, IP and ARP. I'm currently working on adding ICMP support. I've come to realize that the hardest part is not to develop the code here but to find a way to test it. Network in Qemu is a huge pain in the ass to configure. And then, you need tools to generate some packets or at least answer to packets send by the virtual machine, and it's really bad... Nevertheless, it's pretty fun overall :)

Aside from this, I'm also working on a window manager. I'll try to post an update on this.

You can take a look at the thor sources if you're interested.


For the time being, I'll focus my effort on the thor project. I also have some development to do on my home automation system: asgard-server that I plan to finalize and deploy in a useful way this weekend in my apartment. You can also expect some updates on my deep learning library where I've started work to make it more user-friendly (kind of). I'm also still waiting on the first stable version of doctest for a new comparison with Catch.

I really want to try to publish again some more posts on the blog. I'll especially try to publish some more updates about Thor.


eddic 1.2.4: New Boost Spirit X3 parser and minor cleanups

After almost 2 years, the new version of eddic (the compiler of the EDDI programming language) is out! eddic 1.2.4

I haven't worked a lot on this project in the last years, I have been busy with my Ph.D. related projects (ETL and DLL), my operating systems, cpm, ... I've mostly worked on the parser to test the new version of Boost Spirit: X3. This will be described on the next section, with the other changes in the later section.

New Boost Spirit X3

Boost Spirit X3 is a completely revamped version of Boost Spirit X3. It's aimed at performance, both at compile-time and at runtime and uses recent features of modern C++. It's not compatible with Boost Spirit Qi, so you'll most likely have to rewrite a lot of stuff, in the parser, in the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) and in the AST passes as well.

For reference, I'm using the Boost 1.59 version.


Let's start with the pros.

First, the runtime performance is definitely better. Parsing all my eddi test cases and samples, takes 42% less time than with the previous parser. It is important to know that the old parser was very optimized, with moves instead of copies and with a static lexer. You can take a look at this post to see what was necessary to optimize the old Qi. I think it's a good result since the new grammar does not use a lexer (x3 does not support it) and does not need these optimizations. This improvement really was my objective. I'll try to push it farther in the future.

Compile-time performance is also much better. It takes 3 times less time to compile the new parser (1 minute to around 20 seconds). Moreover, the new parser is now in only one file, rather than being it necessary to split it all over the place for compile-time performance. Even though it's not really important for me, it's still good to have :)

Especially due to the performance point, I've been able to remove some code, the lexer, the generated static lexer and the special pointers optimizations of the AST.


Unfortunately, there are some disadvantages of using the new Spirit X3.

First, the AST needs to be changed. For good parsing performance, you need to use x3::variant and x3::forward_ast. This is a major pain in the ass since x3::variant is much less practical to use than boost::variant. Almost everything is explicit, meaning uglier code than before, in my opinion. Moreover, you need to work around x3::forward_ast for boost::get, whereas boost::recursive_wrapper was working better in that matter. I've had to create my own wrapper around boost::get in order to be able to use the new tree. In my opinion, this is clearly a regression.

Secondly, although X3 was also meant to remove the need to use some hacks in the grammar, I ended up having more hacks than before. For instance, many AST node have a fake field in order to make X3 happy. I've still had to use the horrible eps hack at one place. I've had to create a few more rules in order to fix type deduction that is working differently than before (worse for me). And for some reasons, I had to replace some expectations from the grammar to make it parse correctly. This is a really important regression in my opinion, since it may make the parsing slower and will make the error message less nice.

The previous error handling system allowed me to track the file from which an AST node was parsed from. Although the new error handler is a lot nicer than the old system, it does not have this feature, so I had to work around this by using new annotation nodes and a new global handler. Overall, it's probably a bit worse than before, but makes for lighter AST nodes.

Finally, for some reason, I haven't been able to use the debug option of the library (lots of compile time errors). That complicated a bit the debugging of the parser.

Spirit X3 or Spirit Qi ?

Overall, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by Spirit X3. Even though it's faster at runtime and faster to compile, I was really expecting less issues with it. What I really did not like was all the changes I had to make because of x3::variant and x3::forward_ast. Overall, I really don't think it was worth the trouble porting my parser to Spirit X3.

If you have a new project, I would still consider using Boost Spirit X3.

If you have an existing parser, I would probably not advice porting it to X3. Unless you really have issues with parsing performances (and especially if you have not already optimized QI parser), it's probably not worth the trouble and all the time necessary for all the changes.

Other changes

The other changes are much more minor. First of all, I've gotten rid of CMake. This project has really made me hate CMake. I have actually gotten rid of it on all my projects. I'm now using plain Makefiles and having a much better time with them. I've also replaced boost Program Options with cxxopts. It's a much more modern approach for program options parsing. Moreover, it's much more lightweight and it's header only. Only advantages. There also have been lots of changes to code (still not very good quality though).


eddic was my first real project in C++ and this can be seen in the code and the organization. The quality of the code is really bad now that I read it again. Some things are actually terrible :P It's probably normal since I was a beginner in C++ at the time.

For the future version of the compiler, I want to clean the code a lot more and focus on the EDDI language adding new features. Moreover, I'll also get rid of Boost Test Framework by using Catch (or doctest if it is ready).

As for now, I'm not sure on which project I'm going to focus. Either I'll continue working on the compiler or I'll start working again on my operating system (thor-os) in which I was working on process concurrency (without too much success :P). I'll probably post next updates on this post in the coming months.


You can find the EDDI Compiler sources on the Github repository

The version is available in the v1.2.4 tag available in the GitHub repository, in the releases pages or directly in the <em>master</em> branch.


Reduce Catch tests compilation time by another 16%

No, it's not the same post as two days! I've been able to reduce the compilation time of my test cases by another 16%!

Two days ago, I posted an article about how I reduced the compilation time of my tests by 13%, by bypassing the expression deduction from Catch. I came up with the macro REQUIRE_EQUALS:

template<typename L, typename R>
void evaluate_result(Catch::ResultBuilder&& __result, L lhs, R rhs){
    __result.setResultType(lhs == rhs);

#define REQUIRE_EQUALS(lhs, rhs) \
    evaluate_result(Catch::ResultBuilder( "REQUIRE", CATCH_INTERNAL_LINEINFO, #lhs " == " #rhs, Catch::ResultDisposition::Normal ), lhs, rhs);

This has the advantage that the left and right hand sides are directly set, not deduced with templates and operator overloading. This still has exactly the same features has the original macro, but it is a bit less nice in the test code. I was quite happy with that optimization, but it turned out, I was not aggressive enough in my optimizations.

Even though it seems simple, the macro is still bloated. There are two constructors calls: ResultBuilder and SourceLineInfo (hidden behind CATCH_INTERNAL_LINEINFO). That means that if you test case has 100 assertions, 200 constructor calls will need to be processed by the compiler. Considering that I have some test files with around 400 assertions, this is a lot of overhead for nothing. Moreover, two parameters have always the same value, no need to repeat them every time.

Simplifying the macro to the minimum led me to this:

template<typename L, typename R>
void evaluate_result(const char* file, std::size_t line, const char* exp, L lhs, R rhs){
    Catch::ResultBuilder result("REQUIRE", {file, line}, exp, Catch::ResultDisposition::Flags::Normal);
    result.setResultType(lhs == rhs);

#define REQUIRE_EQUALS(lhs, rhs) \
    evaluate_result(__FILE__, __LINE__, #lhs " == " #rhs, lhs, rhs);

The macro is now a simple function call. Even though the function is a template function, it will only be compiled for a few types (double and float in my case), whereas the code of the macro would be unconditionally compiled for each invocation.

With this new macro and function, the compilation time went down from 664 seconds to 554 seconds! This is more than 16% reduction in compilation time. When comparing against the original compilation time (without both optimizations) of 764 seconds, this is a 27% reduction! And there are absolutely no difference in features.

This is a really great result, in my opinion. I don't think this can be cut down more. However, there is still some room for optimization regarding the includes that Catch need. Indeed, it is very bloated as well. A new test framework, doctest follows the same philosophy, but has much smaller include overhead. Once all the necessary features are in doctest, I may consider adapting my macros for it and using it in place of Catch is there is some substantial reduction in compilation time.

If you want to take a look at the code, you can find the adapted code on Github.