C++ Core Guidelines: Improved Performance with Iostreams

4 July 2019

Contents[Show]

As easy as my title and the rules of the C++ core guidelines sound, getting more performance out of the Iostreams is no no-brainer.

sport 659224 1280

Okay, let step back. Although I did a lot of tests, my numbers in this post are more controversial than I thought. If you have any ideas, improvements, or clarifications, please let me know, and I will add them to this post.

Here are the two performance-related rules from the guidelines to Iostreams.

I assume, you don't know std::ios_base::sync_with_stdio?

SL.io.10: Unless you use `printf`-family functions call `ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false)`

Per default, operations on the C++ streams are synchronised with the C streams. This synchronisation happens after each in- or output operation.

C++ Streams: std::cin, std::cout, std::cerr, std::clog, std::wcin, std::wcout, std::wcerr, and std::wclog.
C Streams: stdin, stdout, and stderr.

This allows it to mix C++ and C in- or output operations because operations on the C++ streams go unbuffered to the C streams. What is also important to note from the concurrency perspective: synchronised C++ streams are thread-safe. All threads can write to the C++ streams without any need for synchronisation. The effect may be an interleaving of characters but not a data-race.

When you set the std::ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false), the synchronisation between C++ streams and C streams will not happen because the C++ stream may put their output into a buffer. Because of the buffering, the in- and output operation may become faster. You have to invoke std::ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false) before any in- or output operation. If not, the behaviour is implementation-defined.

I assume you noticed that I wrote quite often maybe. That is for a reason.

Interleaving of C++ Streams and C Streams

First, I want to know what would happen when I execute the following program with various compilers.

// syncWithStdio.cpp

#include <iostream>
#include <cstdio>
 
int main(){
    
    std::ios::sync_with_stdio(false);

    std::cout << std::endl;
    
    std::cout << "1";
    std::printf("2");
    std::cout << "3";
    
    std::cout << std::endl;
    
}

To get a better picture of my various compiler, I add a few pieces of information to them.

GCC 8.2

gcc

SyncWithStdioLinux

Clang 8.0

clang

SyncWithStdioClang

cl.exe 19.20

clexe

SyncWithStdioWin

It seems that only the output on GCC is not synchronised. This observation does not hold for clang or cl.exe on Windows. A small performance test confirmed my first impression.

Modernes C++ Mentoring

Stay informed about my mentoring programs.

- - - - "Fundamentals for C++ Professionals" (open)
- - - - "Design Patterns and Architectural Patterns with C++" (reopens May 2023)

Subscribe via E-Mail.

Performance with and without Synchronisation

Let me write a small program with and without synchronisation to the console. Doing in without synchronisation should be faster.

Synchronised

// syncWithStdioPerformanceSync.cpp

#include <chrono>
#include <fstream>
#include <iostream>
#include <random>
#include <sstream>
#include <string>

constexpr int iterations = 10;

std::ifstream openFile(const std::string& myFile){                  

  std::ifstream file(myFile, std::ios::in);
  if ( !file ){
    std::cerr << "Can't open file "+ myFile + "!" << std::endl;
    exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
  }
  return file;
  
}

std::string readFile(std::ifstream file){                        
    
    std::stringstream buffer;
    buffer << file.rdbuf();
    
    return buffer.str();
    
}

auto writeToConsole(const std::string& fileContent){
     
    auto start = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
    for (auto c: fileContent) std::cout << c;
    std::chrono::duration<double> dur = std::chrono::steady_clock::now() - start;
    return dur;
}  

template <typename Function>
auto measureTime(std::size_t iter, Function&& f){
    std::chrono::duration<double> dur{};
    for (int i = 0; i < iter; ++i){
        dur += f();
    }
    return dur / iter;
}
    
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
    
    std::cout << std::endl;
  
    // get the filename
    std::string myFile;
    if ( argc == 2 ){
        myFile= argv[1];
    }
    else{
        std::cerr << "Filename missing !" << std::endl;
        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
    } 
  
    std::ifstream file = openFile(myFile);                                  // (1)
  
    std::string fileContent = readFile(std::move(file));                    // (2)
 
                                                                            // (3)   
    auto averageWithSync = measureTime(iterations, [&fileContent]{ return writeToConsole(fileContent); });
    
    std::cout << std::endl;
                                                                            // (4) 
    std::cout << "With Synchronisation: " << averageWithSync.count() << " seconds" << std::endl;  
    
    std::cout << std::endl;
    
}

The program is quite easy to explain. I open a file (line 1), read its entire content (line 2) into a string, and write it iterations-times to the console (line 3). This is done in the function writeToConsole(fileContent).

iterations is in my concrete case 10. On end, I display the average time of the output operations (line 4).

Non-Synchronised

The non-synchronised version of the program is quite similar to the synchronised version. Only the main function changed a bit.

// syncWithStdioPerformanceWithoutSync.cpp

... 
 
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
    
    std::ios::sync_with_stdio(false);    // (1)

    std::cout << std::endl;
  
    // get the filename
    std::string myFile;
    if ( argc == 2 ){
        myFile= argv[1];
    }
    else{
        std::cerr << "Filename missing !" << std::endl;
        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
    } 
  
    std::ifstream file = openFile(myFile);
  
    std::string fileContent = readFile(std::move(file));
    
    auto averageWithSync = measureTime(iterations, [&fileContent]{ return writeToConsole(fileContent); });
    
    auto averageWithoutSync = measureTime(iterations, [&fileContent]{ return writeToConsole(fileContent); });
    
    std::cout << std::endl;
    
    std::cout << "Without Synchronisation: " << averageWithoutSync.count() << " seconds" << std::endl;  
  
    std::cout << std::endl;
    
}

I just added line (1) to the main program. Now, I hope for performance improvement.

I did my performance test with a small program but also with a bigger text file (600.000 characters). The bigger file gave me no new insight; therefore, I skipped it.

>> syncWithStdioPerformanceSync syncWithStdioPerformanceSync.cpp
>> syncWithStdioPerformanceWithoutSync syncWithStdioPerformanceSync.cpp

GCC

syncWithStdioPerformanceCppGcc

Clang

syncWithStdioPerformanceCppClang

cl.exe

syncWithStdioPerformanceCppWin

The results puzzled me because of Windows.

With GCC, I had a performance improvement of about 70% in the non-synchronised variant.
Neither with Clang nor cl.exe showed any performance improvement. It seems that the non-synchronised in- and output operations are synchronised. My numbers proved my observation from the program syncWithStdio.cpp.
Only for the record. Did you notice, how slow the console on windows is?

Of course, I'm guilty. I almost always break the next rule.

SL.io.50: Avoid `endl`

Why should you avoid std::endl? Or to say it differently: What is the difference between the manipulator std::endl and '\n'.

std::endl: writes a new line and flushes the output buffer.
'\n': writes a newline.

Flushing the buffer is an expensive operation and should, therefore, be avoided. If necessary, the buffer is automatically flushed. Honestly, I was curious to see the numbers. To make it extremely worse, here is my program, which puts a linebreak (line 3) after each character.

// syncWithStdioPerformanceEndl.cpp

#include <chrono>
#include <fstream>
#include <iostream>
#include <random>
#include <sstream>
#include <string>

constexpr int iterations = 500;                                                    // (1)

std::ifstream openFile(const std::string& myFile){                  

  std::ifstream file(myFile, std::ios::in);
  if ( !file ){
    std::cerr << "Can't open file "+ myFile + "!" << std::endl;
    exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
  }
  return file;
  
}

std::string readFile(std::ifstream file){                        
    
    std::stringstream buffer;
    buffer << file.rdbuf();
    
    return buffer.str();
    
}

template <typename End>
auto writeToConsole(const std::string& fileContent, End end){
     
    auto start = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
    for (auto c: fileContent) std::cout << c << end;                                 // (3)
    std::chrono::duration<double> dur = std::chrono::steady_clock::now() - start;
    return dur;
}  

template <typename Function>
auto measureTime(std::size_t iter, Function&& f){
    std::chrono::duration<double> dur{};
    for (int i = 0; i < iter; ++i){
        dur += f();
    }
    return dur / iter;
}
    
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){

    std::cout << std::endl;
  
    // get the filename
    std::string myFile;
    if ( argc == 2 ){
        myFile= argv[1];
    }
    else{
        std::cerr << "Filename missing !" << std::endl;
        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
    } 
  
    std::ifstream file = openFile(myFile);
  
    std::string fileContent = readFile(std::move(file));
    
    auto averageWithFlush = measureTime(iterations, 
                                        [&fileContent]{ return writeToConsole(fileContent, std::endl<char, std::char_traits<char>>); }); // (2)
    auto averageWithoutFlush = measureTime(iterations, [&fileContent]{ return writeToConsole(fileContent, '\n'); });                     // (3)
    
    std::cout << std::endl;
    std::cout << "With flush(std::endl) " << averageWithFlush.count() << " seconds" << std::endl;  
    std::cout << "Without flush(\\n): " << averageWithoutFlush.count() << " seconds" << std::endl;  
    std::cout << "With Flush/Without Flush: " << averageWithFlush/averageWithoutFlush << std::endl;
    
    std::cout << std::endl;
    
}

In the first case, I did it with std::endl (line 2), in the second case, I did it with '\n' (line 3). The program is quite similar to the previous one. The big difference is that I made 500 iterations (line 3). Why? I was astonished by the variations of the numbers. With a few iterations, I could not notice any difference. Sometimes, std::endl was two times faster than '\n'; sometimes, std::endl was four times slower. I got similar behaviour with cl.exe or with GCC. I also did it with another GCC or cl.exe compiler. Honestly, this was not what I expected. When I did it with 500 iterations, I got the expected winner. '\n' seems to be 10% - 20% faster than std::endl. Once more, only 10% - 20% faster.

GCC

syncWithStdioPerformanceCppLinuxEndl

cl.exe

syncWithStdioPerformanceCppWinEndl

My Small Conclusion

I want to draw a small conclusion out of my performance test.

std::ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false) can make a big difference on your platform, but you lose your thread-safety guarantee.
std::endl is not as bad as its reputation. I will not change my habit.

What's next?

Only one rule exists to the sections regex, chrono, and the C standard library. You see, I have to improvise in my next post.

Thanks a lot to my Patreon Supporters: Matt Braun, Roman Postanciuc, Tobias Zindl, G Prvulovic, Reinhold Dröge, Abernitzke, Frank Grimm, Sakib, Broeserl, António Pina, Sergey Agafyin, Андрей Бурмистров, Jake, GS, Lawton Shoemake, Animus24, Jozo Leko, John Breland, Venkat Nandam, Jose Francisco, Douglas Tinkham, Kuchlong Kuchlong, Robert Blanch, Truels Wissneth, Kris Kafka, Mario Luoni, Friedrich Huber, lennonli, Pramod Tikare Muralidhara, Peter Ware, Daniel Hufschläger, Alessandro Pezzato, Bob Perry, Satish Vangipuram, Andi Ireland, Richard Ohnemus, Michael Dunsky, Leo Goodstadt, John Wiederhirn, Yacob Cohen-Arazi, Florian Tischler, Robin Furness, Michael Young, Holger Detering, Bernd Mühlhaus, Matthieu Bolt, Stephen Kelley, Kyle Dean, Tusar Palauri, Dmitry Farberov, Juan Dent, George Liao, Daniel Ceperley, Jon T Hess, Stephen Totten, Wolfgang Fütterer, Matthias Grün, Phillip Diekmann, Ben Atakora, and Ann Shatoff.

Thanks in particular to Jon Hess, Lakshman, Christian Wittenhorst, Sherhy Pyton, Dendi Suhubdy, Sudhakar Belagurusamy, Richard Sargeant, Rusty Fleming, John Nebel, Mipko, Alicja Kaminska, and Slavko Radman.

My special thanks to Embarcadero

My special thanks to PVS-Studio

My special thanks to Tipi.build

Seminars

I'm happy to give online seminars or face-to-face seminars worldwide. Please call me if you have any questions.

Bookable (Online)

German

C++20: 18.04.2023 - 20.04.2023 (Präsenzschulung)
Clean Code: Best Practices für modernes C++: 20.06.2023 - 22.06.2023 (Präsenzschulung)
Design Pattern und Architekturpattern mit C++: 22.08.2023 - 24.08.2023 (Präsenzschulung)
Embedded Programmierung mit modernem C++ 12.12.2023 - 14.12.2023 (Präsenzschulung)

Standard Seminars (English/German)

Here is a compilation of my standard seminars. These seminars are only meant to give you a first orientation.

C++ - The Core Language
C++ - The Standard Library
C++ - Compact
C++11 and C++14
Concurrency with Modern C++
Design Pattern and Architectural Pattern with C++
Embedded Programming with Modern C++
Generic Programming (Templates) with C++

New

Clean Code with Modern C++
C++20

Contact Me

Phone: +49 7472 917441
Mobil:: +49 176 5506 5086
Mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
German Seminar Page: www.ModernesCpp.de
Mentoring Page: www.ModernesCpp.org

Modernes C++,

RainerGrimmDunkelBlauSmall

Tags: In/Output, Performance

Comments

0 #1 Andreas 2022-07-21 15:39

Is it possible, that the (almost) identical behaviour of std::endl and 'n' in your case is simply the result of wrong pre-conditions in your measurement setup?

You measure the time for std::endl and '\n' by writing to the C++ stream std::cout, which, as you showed above, is by default synced with the C Stream stdout. Without using "std::ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false)" anything written to std::cout should be immediately, i.e. unbuffered, written to the buffer of the C stream stdout. That would mean, by default std::cout is always flushed (from std::cout to stdout) as soon as anything written to it and, hence, there should be no difference between the use of std::endl (with flush) and '\n' (without flush), since flushing happens anyway.

I would suspect that different behaviour of std::endl and '\n' should be observed when writing to C++ streams that are not synced with C streams, for example by removing the sync using "std::ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false)" or writing to a C++ file stream. In this case the C++ streams are allowed (but not required, as I understand) to use own buffers and only then (manually forced) flushing of the buffer should make a difference.

Quote

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

Add comment

JComments