Hi!
Thanks for your response!!!

Yes, your understanding of the problem is mostly correct with a few
details left out. The alternative to using classes would be switch
statements that as discussed would lead to code bloat and might backfire.
The goal is to make a construct that makes the indexing into heterogenous
lists more easy. There is how ever one thing that I would like to clarify:
The goal isn't the classic polymorphism but to be able to return an object
of any type through a specified interface(indexing heterogenous lists),
which your example dosent do. Basically, just like GO and many other
compiled languages support heterogenous lists, I want c++ to do so as well.
Say you want index a bunch of containers(to use top() function),std::visit
fails because it can't return any return type that you would wish for, so
you can either use switch case to write expression top for each container
or this long verbose technique:
#include<vector>
#include<deque>
template<typename T>
struct Base{
     virtual T top_wrapper();
};

template<typename T>
struct Derived_1: Base<T>, std::vector<T>{
      T top_wrapper() override{
           return T{*this.top()};//T{} is just to show that it works even
if top had some other return type
     }
};
template<typename T>
struct Derived_2: Base<T>, std:: deque<T>{
      T top_wrapper() override{
           return T{*this.top()};//T{} is just to show that it works even
if top had some other return type
     }
};
int main(){
std::vector<Base<int>> a;
//The compiler would probably optimize this example, but not an example
where you index the vector using real time input
return 0;
}
//An vector of std::variant only works if I am willing to write a helper
top(std::variant<Args...> obj) function that includes std::visit to call
top(), that in of itself is not only verbose but obscures intent and
context.


Regards, Muneem.

On Sat, 4 Apr 2026, 2:43 am Steve Weinrich via Std-Proposals, <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi Muneem,
>
>
>
> I would like to make sure that I understand this problem before going on.
>
>
>
> I think there are several classes that have a portion (or all) of their
> interface in common. Each method of the interface returns a constant value:
>
>
>
> class First
>
> {
>
> public:
>
> int funcA () const { return 1123; }
>
> int funcB () const ( return 1234; }
>
> int funcC () const { return 1456; }
>
> };
>
>
>
> class Second
>
> {
>
> public:
>
> int funcA () const { return 2123; }
>
> int funcB () const ( return 2234; }
>
> int funcC () const { return 2456; }
>
> };
>
>
>
> class Third
>
> {
>
> public:
>
> int funcA () const { return 3123; }
>
> int funcB () const ( return 3234; }
>
> int funcC () const { return 3456; }
>
> };
>
>
>
> 1. We would like a means to be able to add more classes easily.
> 2. We would like a means to be able to add to the shared interface
> easily.
> 3. We would like to be able to use the shared interface in a
> polymorphic way (like a virtual method).
> 4. Performance is of the utmost importance.
>
>
>
> Is my understanding correct?
>
>
>
> Steve
>
> *From:* Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_[hidden]> *On Behalf
> Of *Muneem via Std-Proposals
> *Sent:* Friday, April 3, 2026 1:54 PM
> *To:* std-proposals_at_[hidden]
> *Cc:* Muneem <itfllow123_at_[hidden]>
> *Subject:* Re: [std-proposals] Fwd: Extension to runtime polymorphism
> proposed
>
>
>
> Sorry for sending two emails at once!
>
> I just wanted to revise the fact that the point of the whole proposal is
> to provide intent, the code that Mr. Maciera was kind enough to bring
> forward proves my exact point, that with enough intent, the compiler can
> optimize anythjng, and these optimizations grow larger as the scale of the
> program grows larger. Microbenchmarks might show a single example but even
> that single example should get us thinking that why is it so slow for this
> one example? Does this overhead force people to write switch case
> statements that can lead to code bloat which can again backfire in terms of
> performance?
>
> Regards, Muneem.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2026, 12:48 am Muneem, <itfllow123_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Thanks again for your feedback, Macieira. 👍
>
> >micro benchmark is misleading
>
> 1. The reason that I gave you microbenchmarks is that some asked for it,
> and even I was too relectunt to use them despite the quote of Bjarne
> Stroustrups
>
> "Don't assume, measure" because in this case, the goal is to either make
> the compiler smaller or runtime faster, both of which are targeted by my
> new proposal.
>
> 2. You are right that the compiler might have folded the loop into half,
> but the point is that it still shows that the observable behaviour is the
> same, infact, if the loop body was to index into a heterogeneous set(using
> the proposed construct) and do some operation then the compiler would
> optimize the indexing if the source of the index is one. This proves that
> intent. An help the compiler do wonders:
>
> 1.Fold loops even when I used volatile to avoid it.
>
> 2.Avoid the entire indexing operations (if in a loop with the most minimal
> compile time overhead)
>
> 3. Store the result immediately after it takes input into some memory
> location (if that solution is the fasted).
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.Optimize a single expression for the sake of the whole program.
>
> Currently, the optimizer might in fact be able to optimize checks in a
> loop, but it's not as easy or as gurrentied because there are no semantical
> promises that we can make with the existing constructs to make it happen.
>
> 4.My main point isn't weather my benchmark is correct or wrong, but rather
> that expressing intent is better. The bench mark was merely to show that
> std::visit is slower (according to g++ and Microsoft visual studio 2026
> compiled programs, using std::chorno and visual studio 2026 CPU usage
> measurement tools to prove my point), but even if some compiler or all
> compilers optimize their performance; we still have compile time overhead
> for taking std::visit and making it faster, and the optimization might
> backfire since it would be to optimize single statements independent of
> what's in the rest of the program. Why? Because unlike my proposed
> construct, std::visit does not have enough context and intent to tell the
> compiler what's going on so that it can generate code that has the exact
> "book keeping" data and access code that fits the entire program.
>
>
>
> 3. In case, someone's think a few nano seconds in a single example isn't a
> big deal, then rethink it because if my construct is passed then yes, it
> would not be a big deal because the compiler can optimize many indexing
> operations into a single heterogenous set and maybe cache the result
> afterwards somewhere. The issue is that this can't be done with the current
> techniques because of the lack of intent. Compilers are much smarter than
> we could ever be because they are work of many people's entire career, not
> just one very smart guy from Intel, so blaming/restricting compilers whose
> job is to be as general for the sake of the whole program.
>
> 4.>I suppose it decided to unroll the loop a >bit
>
> >and made two calls to sink() per loop:
>
> >template <typename T> void sink(const T >&) { asm volatile("" :::
> "memory"); }
>
> Even if it optimized switch case statement using volatile("" :::
> "memory"); but not std::visit
>
> That's my point isn't that switch case is magically faster, but rather the
> compiler has more room to cheat and skip things. Infact the standard allows
> it a lot of free room as long as the observable behaviour is the same, even
> more so by giving it free room with sets of observable behaviours
> (unspecified behaviours)
>
> 5. Microbe marking wasent to show that std::visit is inherintly slower,
> but rather the compiler can and should do mistakes in optimizing it, in
> order to avoid massive compile time overhead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2026, 8:33 pm Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals, <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 2 April 2026 19:15:42 Pacific Daylight Time Thiago Macieira
> via
> Std-Proposals wrote:
> > Even in this case, I have profiled the code above (after fixing it and
> > removing the std::cout itself) and found that overall, the switched case
> > ran 2x faster, at 0.113 ns per iteration, while the variant case required
> > 0.227 ns per iteration. Looking at the CPU performance counters, the
> > std::variant code has 2 branches per iteration and takes 1 cycle per
> > iteration, running at 5 IPC (thus, 5 instructions per iteration).
> > Meanwhile, the switched case has 0.5 branch per iteration and takes 0.5
> > cycle per iteration, running at 2 IPC. The half cycle numbers make sense
> > because I believe the two instructions are getting macrofused together
> and
> > execute as a single uop, which causes confusing numbers.
>
> This half a cycle and ninth of a nanosecond problem has been on my mind
> for a
> while. The execution time of anything needs to be a multiple of the cycle
> time, so a CPU running at 4.5 GHz line mine was shouldn't have a
> difference of
> one ninth of a nanosecond. One explanation would be that somehow the CPU
> was
> executing two iterations of the loop at the same time, pipelining.
>
> But disassembling the binary shows a simpler explanation. The switch loop
> was:
>
> 40149f: mov $0x3b9aca00,%eax
> 4014a4: nop
> 4014a5: data16 cs nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> 4014b0: sub $0x2,%eax
> 4014b3: jne 4014b0
>
> [Note how there is no test for what was being indexed in the loop!]
>
> Here's what I had missed: sub $2. I'm not entirely certain what GCC was
> thinking here, but it's subtracting 2 instead of 1, so this looped half a
> billion times (0x3b9aca00 / 2). I suppose it decided to unroll the loop a
> bit
> and made two calls to sink() per loop:
>
> template <typename T> void sink(const T &) { asm volatile("" :::
> "memory"); }
>
> But that expanded to nothing in the output. I could add "nop" so we'd see
> what
> happened and the CPU would be obligated to retire those instructions,
> increasing the instruction executed counter (I can't quickly find how many
> the
> TGL processor / WLC core can retire per cycle, but I recall it's 6, so
> adding
> 2 more instructions shouldn't affect the execution time). But I don't
> think I
> need to further benchmark this to prove my point:
>
> The microbenchmark is misleading.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
> Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>