cmkr VS abseil-cpp

Been using https://cmkr.build/ for a while now, its great and also declarative.

I would like to counter with a project I’ve been working on: https://cmkr.build. Unfortunately writing good CMake is extremely repetitive and there is definitely room for a generator that has sane defaults.

You are trying to use it the wrong way it seems, the point of CMakeLists.txt is that you only maintain that and nothing else. If you have changes in there then it will re-generate the project for you when it starts building. Adding files via IDE is not supported and is not really the point, there used to be a time where I primarily worked with VS solutions but the more I dove into the open source space the more it became clear that its the worst way of doing it. You just have to get used to a different workflow, the benefit is that your project can be in theory now compiled on all sorts of systems and not just with VS. If CMake is too much to handle perhaps give https://cmkr.build/ a try, it hides a lot of the CMake madness behind its toml specification, been using it for a while now, its great.

https://cmkr.build/ its pretty straight forward and been using it for some time now, can only highly recommend it.

Currently working on https://github.com/build-cpp/cmkr

I started working on https://github.com/build-cpp/cmkr to remedy this, but other similar solutions exist.

I invite you to take a look at https://github.com/build-cpp/cmkr, it makes this even easier ^

I’ve been working on cmkr, a modern build system based on CMake and TOML.

Definitely! I would recommend using cmake because it’s easy to generate a compile_commands.json. I’ve been working on https://build-cpp.github.io/cmkr to make the transition as smooth as possible.

Yeah, it's nice! And Abseil does it, IFF you use LLVM libc++.

https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/string...

The standard adopted it as resize_and_overwrite. Which I think is a little clunky.

This may be confusing to those familiar with Google's libraries. The baseline is the Go BTree, which I personally never heard of until just now, not the C++ absl::btree_set. The benchmarks aren't directly comparable, but the C++ version also comes with good microbenchmark coverage.

https://github.com/google/btree

https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/contai...

An implementation of call_once that accommodates callbacks that throw: https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/base/c...

I wouldn't say it's that cryptic. It's just a few bitwise rotations/shifts/xor operations.

You can see hashing optimizations as well https://www.deepmind.com/blog/alphadev-discovers-faster-sort..., https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/commit/74eee2aff683cc7d...

I was one of the members who reviewed expertly what has been done both in sorting and hashing. Overall it's more about assembly, finding missed compiler optimizations and balancing between correctness and distribution (in hashing in particular).

It was not revolutionary in a sense it hasn't found completely new approaches but converged to something incomprehensible for humans but relatively good for performance which proves the point that optimal programs are very inhuman.

Note that for instructions in sorting, removing them does not always lead to better performance, for example, instructions can run in parallel and the effect can be less profound. Benchmarks can lie and compiler could do something differently when recompiling the sort3 function which was changed. There was some evidence that the effect can come from the other side.

For hashing it was even funnier, very small strings up to 64 bit already used 3 instructions like add some constant -> multiply 64x64 -> xor upper/lower. For bigger ones the question becomes more complicated, that's why 9-16 was a better spot and it simplified from 2 multiplications to just one and a rotation. Distribution on real workloads was good, it almost passed smhasher and we decided it was good enough to try out in prod. We did not rollback as you can see from abseil :)

But even given all that, it was fascinating to watch how this system was searching and was able to find particular programs can be further simplified. Kudos to everyone involved, it's a great incremental change that can bring more results in the future.

Check out https://abseil.io. It offers absl::optional, which is a backport of std::optional.