this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
1144 points (98.6% liked)
Programmer Humor
23313 readers
3007 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are you telling me that no compiler optimizes this? Why?
They do, that's the optimisation.
CPUs don't read one bit a a time.
It would be slower to read the value if you had to also do bitwise operations to get the value.
But you can also define your own bitfield types to store booleans packed together if you really need to. I would much rather that than have the compiler do it automatically for me.
Well there are containers that store booleans in single bits (e.g.
std::vector<bool>- which was famously a big mistake).But in the general case you don't want that because it would be slower.
Why is this a big mistake? I’m not a c++ person
The mistake was that they created a type that behaves like an array in every case except for
bool, for which they created a special magical version that behaves just subtly different enough that it can break things in confusing ways.Could you provide an example?
Consider what the disassembly would look like. There's no fast way to do it.
It's also unnecessary since 8 bytes is a negligible amount in most cases. Serialization is the only real scenario where it matters. (Edit: and embedded)
In embedded, if you are to the point that you need to optimize the bools to reduce the footprint, you fucked up sizing your mcu.