Feature: Software and tools


The C++ standard library is assumed to be safe and reliable, but, in practice, it is just as susceptible to corner cases and implementation differences as application-level code


data structures through <tuple>. Tese abstractions aim to hide away conversions prone to complex precision errors and wrestle the convoluted overload resolution rules. In this article we use examples uncovered during the development of SuperGuard, functional safety test suite for C++ by Solid Sands, to demystify the potential pitfalls of both headers. We take a closer look at the nuances of constructor resolution and time representation, explain why they matter, and show how automated testing plays a vital role in making C++ safer for critical systems.


Functional safety and testing In safety-critical domains such as automotive, aerospace or industrial control, soſtware must comply with stringent requirements. Standards like ISO 26262 specify how soſtware should be designed, tested and verified. Tese standards demand not only functional correctness, but also predictability, traceability and comprehensive testing across all software layers, including the language and library level. The standard library of C++ is often assumed to be safe and reliable, but, in practice, it is just as susceptible to corner cases and implementation differences as application-level code. Particularly in the areas of generic programming and numerical computation, small deviations from expected behaviour can have large consequences. Solid Sands created SuperGuard to


place the standard C++ library under the same level of scrutiny typically reserved for application logic. By identifying ambiguities, verifying conformance and exposing hidden behaviours, SuperGuard provides the depth of analysis required for use in certified systems.


www.electronicsworld.co.uk September 2025 17


The versatility and power of <tuple> Te tuple is one of the most powerful data structures in C++, allowing developers to combine related data without declaring a full-blown class. A good example is a tuple that holds the position of a vehicle in a 3D space (x, y, z coordinates) or a tuple that represents the state of various sensors in an autonomous driving system. Tuples avoid unnecessary performance overheads, eliminate boilerplate code for conversion, and retain type safety – all critical factors for automotive applications where both efficiency and reliability are non-negotiable. Although tuples offer significant


advantages, they are not natively part of the C++ language itself. Instead, they reside in the C++ standard library under the <tuple> header. Tis header relies heavily on template programming and introduces a level of complexity that, whilst powerful, can create challenges


for developers, especially when it comes to functional safety testing. In automotive soſtware development,


tuples are used in various systems, from sensor fusion algorithms in autonomous vehicles to control soſtware for engine management. Ensuring that tuple construction and conversions are handled correctly is therefore crucial for code ergonomics, efficiency and preventing subtle compile-time issues that could indirectly impact system reliability. C++ allows tuples to be constructed in a


variety of ways. Tese include: • From the tuple’s element types directly; • By copying or moving from a similar tuple;


• From a pair or other combinations of types convertible to the tuple’s elements. Tis flexibility mainly introduces


complexity in the implementation and testing of <tuple>. Te issue lies in the way these constructor calls are resolved, such as in a situation where a user-defined type A can be implicitly converted from a tuple of A. Constructing a tuple from another tuple or type could be interpreted as copying or moving, or it could trigger a conversion from a compatible type. Such scenarios create potential ambiguities in constructor resolution. In cases where multiple constructor options exist, the compiler must decide which constructor to invoke. Tis process, called overload resolution,


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44