Jon Ross-Perkins c5761d2d16 Improve parsing large integers (#6908)
Though I started this thinking about performance of parse of large
decimal integers, I extended it to generally improve performance of
integer values (TBH I hadn't expected such a difference for binary/hex,
but I'll take it).

Note I think tests change because I'm making subtle changes to bit
widths. The changes themselves appear harmless to me, but happy to make
changes if it'd help.

Bumping up the number of digits by 10x because it's not really a
performance issue anymore (eh, maybe somebody will want to specify a
256-byte value in binary). But, at a certain point it still seems like a
mistake if somebody has that many digits in a row.

Fixes #980

Highlighting benchmark differences:
```diff
- BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/1           37.1 ns         37.1 ns     18887116
+ BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/1           21.9 ns         21.9 ns     31902433
- BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/10000 1251228680 ns   1250457559 ns            1
+ BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/10000     458818 ns       458626 ns         1523
- BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/1            29.0 ns         29.0 ns     24058533
+ BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/1            22.2 ns         22.1 ns     31566949
- BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/10000     1390557 ns      1389782 ns          506
+ BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/10000       16402 ns        16396 ns        42744
- BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/1               34.0 ns         34.0 ns     20562432
+ BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/1               22.4 ns         22.4 ns     31238055
- BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/10000        5387942 ns      5385262 ns          130
+ BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/10000          39249 ns        39233 ns        17859
```

Benchmark before:
```
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark                                  Time             CPU   Iterations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BM_Lex_Float                            10.6 ns         10.6 ns     66138191
BM_Lex_Int                              15.5 ns         15.4 ns     45149703
BM_Lex_IntDecimalN/1                    3.11 ns         3.11 ns    225524908
BM_Lex_IntDecimalN/10                   11.8 ns         11.8 ns     56719805
BM_Lex_IntDecimalN/100                   102 ns          102 ns      6867468
BM_Lex_IntDecimalN/1000                  943 ns          942 ns       745313
BM_Lex_IntDecimalN/10000                9465 ns         9461 ns        73970
BM_ComputeValue_Float                   61.6 ns         61.6 ns     11377463
BM_ComputeValue_Int                      106 ns          106 ns      6587381
BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/1           37.1 ns         37.1 ns     18887116
BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/10          87.7 ns         87.7 ns      7960837
BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/100         7963 ns         7956 ns        88858
BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/1000     1212577 ns      1211906 ns          578
BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/10000 1251228680 ns   1250457559 ns            1
BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/1            29.0 ns         29.0 ns     24058533
BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/10           69.4 ns         69.4 ns     10108642
BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/100           963 ns          962 ns       726982
BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/1000        21562 ns        21551 ns        32506
BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/10000     1390557 ns      1389782 ns          506
BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/1               34.0 ns         34.0 ns     20562432
BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/10              70.4 ns         70.4 ns      9953165
BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/100             1474 ns         1473 ns       472776
BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/1000           61818 ns        61762 ns        11363
BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/10000        5387942 ns      5385262 ns          130
```

Benchmark after:
```
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark                                  Time             CPU   Iterations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BM_Lex_Float                            10.9 ns         10.9 ns     63993114
BM_Lex_Int                              15.1 ns         15.1 ns     46869766
BM_Lex_IntDecimalN/1                    3.16 ns         3.16 ns    220923300
BM_Lex_IntDecimalN/10                   12.2 ns         12.2 ns     57731654
BM_Lex_IntDecimalN/100                   102 ns          102 ns      6875516
BM_Lex_IntDecimalN/1000                  942 ns          942 ns       742359
BM_Lex_IntDecimalN/10000                9353 ns         9350 ns        75096
BM_ComputeValue_Float                   44.9 ns         44.9 ns     15619691
BM_ComputeValue_Int                     48.9 ns         48.9 ns     14361507
BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/1           21.9 ns         21.9 ns     31902433
BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/10          30.3 ns         30.3 ns     23134117
BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/100          224 ns          223 ns      3092567
BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/1000        5834 ns         5830 ns       117469
BM_ComputeValue_IntDecimalN/10000     458818 ns       458626 ns         1523
BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/1            22.2 ns         22.1 ns     31566949
BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/10           32.9 ns         32.9 ns     21306927
BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/100           198 ns          198 ns      3545277
BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/1000         1671 ns         1669 ns       419656
BM_ComputeValue_IntBinaryN/10000       16402 ns        16396 ns        42744
BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/1               22.4 ns         22.4 ns     31238055
BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/10              47.8 ns         47.7 ns     14694407
BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/100              436 ns          436 ns      1609794
BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/1000            3966 ns         3962 ns       177109
BM_ComputeValue_IntHexN/10000          39249 ns        39233 ns        17859
```

Assisted-by: Google Antigravity with Gemini
2026-03-16 20:00:51 +00:00
2026-03-09 18:21:08 +00:00
2026-03-14 00:50:58 +00:00
2026-03-09 15:49:11 +00:00
2026-03-14 00:50:58 +00:00
2026-03-09 15:49:11 +00:00
2025-01-06 23:50:12 +00:00
2026-03-05 19:56:13 +00:00
2026-03-09 14:56:41 +00:00
2020-06-16 17:58:17 -07:00
2024-08-20 17:53:06 +00:00

Carbon Language:
An experimental successor to C++

Why? | Goals | Status | Getting started | Join us

See our announcement video from CppNorth. Note that Carbon is not ready for use.

Quicksort code in Carbon. Follow the link to read more.

Fast and works with C++

  • Performance matching C++ using LLVM, with low-level access to bits and addresses
  • Interoperate with your existing C++ code, from inheritance to templates
  • Fast and scalable builds that work with your existing C++ build systems

Modern and evolving

  • Solid language foundations that are easy to learn, especially if you have used C++
  • Easy, tool-based upgrades between Carbon versions
  • Safer fundamentals, and an incremental path towards a memory-safe subset

Welcoming open-source community

  • Clear goals and priorities with robust governance
  • Community that works to be welcoming, inclusive, and friendly
  • Batteries-included approach: compiler, libraries, docs, tools, package manager, and more

Why build Carbon?

C++ remains the dominant programming language for performance-critical software, with massive and growing codebases and investments. However, it is struggling to improve and meet developers' needs, as outlined above, in no small part due to accumulating decades of technical debt. Incrementally improving C++ is extremely difficult, both due to the technical debt itself and challenges with its evolution process. The best way to address these problems is to avoid inheriting the legacy of C or C++ directly, and instead start with solid language foundations like modern generics system, modular code organization, and consistent, simple syntax.

Existing modern languages already provide an excellent developer experience: Go, Swift, Kotlin, Rust, and many more. Developers that can use one of these existing languages should. Unfortunately, the designs of these languages present significant barriers to adoption and migration from C++. These barriers range from changes in the idiomatic design of software to performance overhead.

Carbon is fundamentally a successor language approach, rather than an attempt to incrementally evolve C++. It is designed around interoperability with C++ as well as large-scale adoption and migration for existing C++ codebases and developers. A successor language for C++ requires:

  • Performance matching C++, an essential property for our developers.
  • Seamless, bidirectional interoperability with C++, such that a library anywhere in an existing C++ stack can adopt Carbon without porting the rest.
  • A gentle learning curve with reasonable familiarity for C++ developers.
  • Comparable expressivity and support for existing software's design and architecture.
  • Scalable migration, with some level of source-to-source translation for idiomatic C++ code.

With this approach, we can build on top of C++'s existing ecosystem, and bring along existing investments, codebases, and developer populations. There are a few languages that have followed this model for other ecosystems, and Carbon aims to fill an analogous role for C++:

  • JavaScript → TypeScript
  • Java → Kotlin
  • C++ → Carbon

Language Goals

We are designing Carbon to support:

  • Performance-critical software
  • Software and language evolution
  • Code that is easy to read, understand, and write
  • Practical safety and testing mechanisms
  • Fast and scalable development
  • Modern OS platforms, hardware architectures, and environments
  • Interoperability with and migration from existing C++ code

While many languages share subsets of these goals, what distinguishes Carbon is their combination.

We also have explicit non-goals for Carbon, notably including:

Our detailed goals document fleshes out these ideas and provides a deeper view into our goals for the Carbon project and language.

Project status

Carbon Language is currently an experimental project. We are hard at work on a toolchain implementation with compiler and linker. You can try out the current state at compiler-explorer.com.

We want to better understand whether we can build a language that meets our successor language criteria, and whether the resulting language can gather a critical mass of interest within the larger C++ industry and community.

Currently, we have fleshed out several core aspects of both Carbon the project and the language:

  • The strategy of the Carbon Language and project.
  • An open-source project structure, governance model, and evolution process.
  • Critical and foundational aspects of the language design informed by our experience with C++ and the most difficult challenges we anticipate. This includes designs for:
    • Generics
    • Class types
    • Inheritance
    • Operator overloading
    • Lexical and syntactic structure
    • Code organization and modular structure
  • An under-development compiler and toolchain that will compile Carbon (and eventually C++ code as well) into standard executable code. This is where most of our current implementation efforts are directed.
    • Historically, there was also a prototype explorer interpreter that implemented an older version of the Carbon language design, but is no longer under development and has been archived.

If you're interested in contributing, we're currently focused on developing the Carbon toolchain until it can support Carbon ↔ C++ interop. Beyond that, we plan to continue developing the design and toolchain until we can ship the 0.1 language and support evaluating Carbon in more detail.

You can see our full roadmap for more details.

Carbon and C++

If you're already a C++ developer, Carbon should have a gentle learning curve. It is built out of a consistent set of language constructs that should feel familiar and be easy to read and understand.

The Carbon code here is hypothetical and meant to show the look and feel of the language.

C++ code like this:

A snippet of C++ code. Follow the link to read it.

corresponds to this Carbon code:

A snippet of converted Carbon code. Follow the link to read it.

You can call Carbon from C++ without overhead and the other way around. This means you migrate a single C++ library to Carbon within an application, or write new Carbon on top of your existing C++ investment. For example:

A snippet of mixed Carbon and C++ code. Follow the link to read it.

Read more about C++ interop in Carbon.

Beyond interoperability between Carbon and C++, we're also planning to support migration tools that will mechanically translate idiomatic C++ code into Carbon code to help you switch an existing C++ codebase to Carbon.

Generics

Carbon provides a modern generics system with checked definitions, while still supporting opt-in templates for seamless C++ interop. Checked generics provide several advantages compared to C++ templates:

  • Generic definitions are fully type-checked, removing the need to instantiate to check for errors and giving greater confidence in code.
    • Avoids the compile-time cost of re-checking the definition for every instantiation.
    • When using a definition-checked generic, usage error messages are clearer, directly showing which requirements are not met.
  • Enables automatic, opt-in type erasure and dynamic dispatch without a separate implementation. This can reduce the binary size and enables constructs like heterogeneous containers.
  • Strong, checked interfaces mean fewer accidental dependencies on implementation details and a clearer contract for consumers.

Without sacrificing these advantages, Carbon generics support specialization, ensuring it can fully address performance-critical use cases of C++ templates. For more details about Carbon's generics, see their design.

In addition to easy and powerful interop with C++, Carbon templates can be constrained and incrementally migrated to checked generics at a fine granularity and with a smooth evolutionary path.

Memory safety

Safety, and especially memory safety, remains a key challenge for C++ and something a successor language needs to address.

We plan to support a two step migration process:

  1. Highly automated, minimal supervision migration from C++ to a dialect of Carbon designed for C++ interop and migration.
  2. Incremental refactoring of the Carbon code to adopt memory-safe designs, patterns, and APIs.

We also want to address important, low-hanging fruit in the safety space immediately when migrating into Carbon:

  • Tracking uninitialized states better, increased enforcement of initialization, and hardening against initialization bugs when needed.
  • Designing fundamental APIs and idioms to support dynamic bounds checking.
  • Switching from undefined behavior to erroneous behavior wherever possible, and marking the remaining undefined behavior with visible unsafe syntax.
  • Having a default debug build mode that has less runtime overhead while being more comprehensive than existing C++ debug build modes combined with Address Sanitizer.

For more details, see our safety design.

Getting started

To try out Carbon immediately in your browser, you can use the toolchain at: carbon.compiler-explorer.com.

We are developing a traditional toolchain for Carbon that can compile and link programs. However, Carbon is still an early, experimental project, and so we only have very experimental nightly releases of the Carbon toolchain available to download, and only on limited platforms. If you are using a recent Ubuntu Linux or similar (Debian, WSL, etc.), you can try these out by going to our releases page and download the latest nightly toolchain tar file: carbon_toolchain-0.0.0-0.nightly.YYYY.MM.DD.tar.gz. Then you can try it out:

# A variable with the nightly version from yesterday:
VERSION="$(date -d yesterday +0.0.0-0.nightly.%Y.%m.%d)"

# Get the release
wget https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/releases/download/v${VERSION}/carbon_toolchain-${VERSION}.tar.gz

# Unpack the toolchain:
tar -xvf carbon_toolchain-${VERSION}.tar.gz

# Create a simple Carbon source file:
echo "import Core library \"io\"; fn Run() { Core.Print(42); }" > forty_two.carbon

# Compile to an object file:
./carbon_toolchain-${VERSION}/bin/carbon compile \
  --output=forty_two.o forty_two.carbon

# Install minimal system libraries used for linking. Note that installing `gcc`
# or `g++` for compiling C/C++ code with GCC will also be sufficient, these are
# just the specific system libraries Carbon linking still uses.
sudo apt install libgcc-11-dev

# Link to an executable:
./carbon_toolchain-${VERSION}/bin/carbon link \
  --output=forty_two forty_two.o

# Run it:
./forty_two

As a reminder, the toolchain is still very early and many things don't yet work. Please hold off on filing lots of bugs: we know many parts of this don't work yet or may not work on all systems. We expect to have releases that are much more robust and reliable that you can try out when we reach our 0.1 milestone.

If you want to build Carbon's toolchain yourself or are thinking about contributing fixes or improvements to Carbon, you'll need to install our build dependencies (Clang, LLD, libc++) and check out the Carbon repository. For example, on Debian or Ubuntu:

# Update apt.
sudo apt update

# Install tools.
sudo apt install \
  clang \
  libc++-dev \
  libc++abi-dev \
  lld

# Download Carbon's code.
$ git clone https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang
$ cd carbon-lang

Then you can try out our toolchain which has a very early-stage compiler for Carbon:

# Build and run the toolchain's help to get documentation on the command line.
$ ./scripts/run_bazelisk.py run //toolchain -- help

For complete instructions, including installing dependencies on various different platforms, see our contribution tools documentation.

Learn more about the Carbon project:

Conference talks

Carbon focused talks from the community:

2026

  • Benchmarking and optimizing the Carbon compiler, NDC {Toronto} (May 5-8)
  • Carbon: graduating from the experiment, NDC {Toronto} (May 5-8)

2025

  • Carbon: from C++ to Memory Safety, REBASE - ICFP/SPLASH (slides)
  • Memory safety everywhere with both Carbon and Rust, RustConf (video, slides)

2024

  • Generic implementation strategies in Carbon and Clang, LLVM Developers' Meeting (video, slides)
  • The Carbon Language: Road to 0.1, NDC {TechTown} (video, slides)
  • How designing Carbon with C++ interop taught me about C++ variadics and overloads, CppNorth (video, slides)
  • Generic Arity: Definition-Checked Variadics in Carbon, C++Now (video, slides)
  • Carbon: An experiment in different tradeoffs, panel session, EuroLLVM (video, slides)
  • Carbon's high-level semantic IR lightning talk, EuroLLVM (video)

2023

  • Carbon’s Successor Strategy: From C++ interop to memory safety, C++Now (video, slides)
  • Definition-Checked Generics, C++Now
  • Modernizing Compiler Design for Carbon’s Toolchain, C++Now (video, slides)

2022

  • Carbon Language: Syntax and trade-offs, Core C++ (video, slides)
  • Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++, CppNorth (video, slides)

Other videos

We additionally have toolchain videos.

Join us

We'd love to have folks join us and contribute to the project. Carbon is committed to a welcoming and inclusive environment where everyone can contribute.

Contributing

You can also directly:

You can check out some "good first issues", or join the #contributing-help channel on Discord. See our full CONTRIBUTING documentation for more details.

S
Description
Carbon Language's main repository: documents, design, implementation, and related tools. (NOTE: Carbon Language is experimental; see README)
Readme Apache-2.0
2.7 GiB
Languages
C++ 89.4%
Starlark 4.5%
Python 3.6%
Carbon 1.6%
JavaScript 0.4%
Other 0.2%