Encountered a bit of weird-looking code and it got me wondering if there's any practical application to it, or if it's just a random oddity.
The code essentially looks like this:
#ifdef PREPROCESSOR_CONDITION
if (runtime_condition) {
} else
#endif
{
//expression
}
I included the macro bit, though I doubt it has any bearing. There's no code that runs when runtime_condition is true, only the else block. I figure this ought to be completely identical to using if(!runtime_condition) and no else block (which would have been more straightforward), but maybe there's some kind of compiler-optimizey thing happening?
Or, you know, it could be that there used to be something in the if block that got deleted and nobody bothered to change the expression.
The "macro bit" is significant.
Consider what happens if the programmer mistakenly changes the snippet to
#ifdef PREPROCESSOR_CONDITION
if (runtime_condition)
{
}
else
#endif
{
//expression
}
else
{
// another expression
}
This will result in a compilation error, regardless of whether PREPROCESSOR_CONDITION is defined or not.
With your change, viz;
#ifdef PREPROCESSOR_CONDITION
if (!runtime_condition)
#endif
{
//expression
}
else
{
// another expression
}
it will compile if PREPROCESSOR_CONDITION is defined, but fail if it is not defined.
If the programmer who adds the else only attempts compilation in conditions with PREPROCESSOR_CONDITION defined, no problem will be found. There will then be a latent defect in the code, that will not be exposed until the code is compiled with PREPROCESSOR_CONDITION undefined.
This may seem minor in a single code snippet, but compilation errors occurring by surprise (e.g. code breaking in unexpected places) is a significant productivity concern if it occurs in larger projects.
Ensuring the conditional definitely always has two branches (on those occasions when it is compiled as a conditional) guarantees that someone who works on a platform that always has PREPROCESSOR_CONDITION defined won't absent-mindedly add a real else block below, which clearly isn't how this block is supposed to work (or worse, "fix" it so that their code does compile everywhere, but in the process damage whatever the intent of the original author was in constructing their blocks that way).
If that is the intent, it would normally make sense to communicate it explicitly by hiding the exact details of the if-empty-else behind a macro named something like UNLESS, though.
It definitely isn't anything to do with optimization. If you think in terms of the jumps involved, a compiler already has to invert the value of the predicate to decide whether to skip the block or not (i.e. if (A) {B;} C:... really means if (!A) goto C; B; C:...), which means it folds the hand-written ! at the outermost level of the expression into the conditional's structure anyway; since most instruction sets will provide both jump-if-true and jump-if-not-true instructions, doing this is completely free, and both ways to write "if not" in the source will produce the same machine code on even a very simple compiler without any optimization.
Related
We are writing safety-critical code and I'd like a stronger way than [[nodiscard]] to ensure that checking of function return values is caught by the compiler.
[Update]
Thanks for all the discussion in the comments. Let me clarify that this question may seem contrived, or not "typical use case", or not how someone else would do it. Please take this as an academic exercise if that makes it easier to ignore "well why don't you just do it this way?". The question is exactly whether it's possible to create a type(s) that fails compiling if it is not assigned to an l-value as the return result of a function call .
I know about [[nodiscard]], warnings-as-errors, and exceptions, and this question asks if it's possible to achieve something similar, that is a compile time error, not something caught at run-time. I'm beginning to suspect it's not possible, and so any explanation why is very much appreciated.
Constraints:
MSVC++ 2019
Something that doesn't rely on warnings
Warnings-as-Errors also doesn't work
It's not feasible to constantly run static analysis
Macros are OK
Not a runtime check, but caught by the compiler
Not exception-based
I've been trying to think how to create a type(s) that, if it's not assigned to a variable from a function return, the compiler flags an error.
Example:
struct MustCheck
{
bool success;
...???...
};
MustCheck DoSomething( args )
{
...
return MustCheck{true};
}
int main(void) {
MustCheck res = DoSomething(blah);
if( !res.success ) { exit(-1); }
DoSomething( bloop ); // <------- compiler error
}
If such a thing is provably impossible through the type system, I'll also accept that answer ;)
(EDIT) Note 1: I have been thinking about your problem and reached the conclusion that the question is ill posed. It is not clear what you are looking for because of a small detail: what counts as checking? How the checkings compose and how far from the point of calling?
For example, does this count as checking? note that composition of boolean values (results) and/or other runtime variable matters.
bool b = true; // for example
auto res1 = DoSomething1(blah);
auto res2 = DoSomething2(blah);
if((res1 and res2) or b){...handle error...};
The composition with other runtime variables makes it impossible to make any guarantee at compile-time and for composition with other "results" you will have to exclude certain logical operators, like OR or XOR.
(EDIT) Note 2: I should have asked before but 1) if the handling is supposed to always abort: why not abort from the DoSomething function directly? 2) if handling does a specific action on failure, then pass it as a lambda to DoSomething (after all you are controlling what it returns, and what it takese). 3) composition of failures or propagation is the only not trivial case, and it is not well defined in your question.
Below is the original answer.
This doesn't fulfill all the (edited) requirements you have (I think they are excessive) but I think this is the only path forward really.
Below my comments.
As you hinted, for doing this at runtime there are recipes online about "exploding" types (they assert/abort on destruction if they where not checked, tracked by an internal flag).
Note that this doesn't use exceptions (but it is runtime and it is not that bad if you test the code often, it is after all a logical error).
For compile-time, it is more tricky, returning (for example a bool) with [[nodiscard]] is not enough because there are ways of no discarding without checking for example assigning to a (bool) variable.
I think the next layer is to active -Wunused-variable -Wunused-expression -Wunused-parameter (and treat it like an error -Werror=...).
Then it is much harder to not check the bool because comparison is pretty much to only operation you can really do with a bool.
(You can assign to another bool but then you will have to use that variable).
I guess that's quite enough.
There are still Machiavelian ways to mark a variable as used.
For that you can invent a bool-like type (class) that is 1) [[nodiscard]] itself (classes can be marked nodiscard), 2) the only supported operation is ==(bool) or !=(bool) (maybe not even copyable) and return that from your function. (as a bonus you don't need to mark your function as [[nodiscard]] because it is automatic.)
I guess it is impossible to avoid something like (void)b; but that in itself becomes a flag.
Even if you cannot avoid the absence of checking, you can force patterns that will immediately raise eyebrows at least.
You can even combine the runtime and compile time strategy.
(Make CheckedBool exploding.)
This will cover so many cases that you have to be happy at this point.
If compiler flags don’t protect you, you will have still a backup that can be detected in unit tests (regardless of taking the error path!).
(And don’t tell me now that you don’t unit test critical code.)
What you want is a special case of substructural types. Rust is famous for implementing a special case called "affine" types, where you can "use" something "at most once". Here, you instead want "relevant" types, where you have to use something at least once.
C++ has no official built-in support for such things. Maybe we can fake it? I thought not. In the "appendix" to this answer I include my original logic for why I thought so. Meanwhile, here's how to do it.
(Note: I have not tested any of this; I have not written any C++ in years; use at your own risk.)
First, we create a protected destructor in MustCheck. Thus, if we simply ignore the return value, we will get an error. But how do we avoid getting an error if we don't ignore the return value? Something like this.
(This looks scary: don't worry, we wrap most of it in a macro.)
int main(){
struct Temp123 : MustCheck {
void f() {
MustCheck* mc = this;
*mc = DoSomething();
}
} res;
res.f();
if(!res.success) print "oops";
}
Okay, that looks horrible, but after defining a suitable macro, we get:
int main(){
CAPTURE_RESULT(res, DoSomething());
if(!res.success) print "oops";
}
I leave the macro as an exercise to the reader, but it should be doable. You should probably use __LINE__ or something to generate the name Temp123, but it shouldn't be too hard.
Disclaimer
Note that this is all sorts of hacky and terrible, and you likely don't want to actually use this. Using [[nodiscard]] has the advantage of allowing you to use natural return types, instead of this MustCheck thing. That means that you can create a function, and then one year later add nodiscard, and you only have to fix the callers that did the wrong thing. If you migrate to MustCheck, you have to migrate all the callers, even those that did the right thing.
Another problem with this approach is that it is unreadable without macros, but IDEs can't follow macros very well. If you really care about avoiding bugs then it really helps if your IDE and other static analyzers understand your code as well as possible.
As mentioned in the comments you can use [[nodiscard]] as per:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/attributes?view=msvc-160
And modify to use this warning as compile error:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/preprocessor/warning?view=msvc-160
That should cover your use case.
tl;dr: Can it be ensured somehow (e.g. by writing a unit test) that some things are optimized away, e.g. whole loops?
The usual approach to be sure that something is not included in the production build is wrapping it with #if...#endif. But I prefer to stay with C++ mechanics instead. Even there, instead of complicated template specializations I like to keep implementations simple and argue "hey, the compiler will optimize this out anyway".
Context is embedded SW in automotive (binary size matters) with often poor compilers. They are certified in the sense of safety, but usually not good in optimizations.
Example 1: In a container the destruction of elements is typically a loop:
for(size_t i = 0; i<elements; i++)
buffer[i].~T();
This works also for build-in types such as int, as the standard allows the explicit call of the destructor also for any scalar types (C++11 12.4-15). In such case the loop does nothing and is optimized out. In GCC it is, but in another (Aurix) not, I saw a literally empty loop in the disassembly! So that needed a template specialization to fix it.
Example 2: Code, which is intended for debugging, profiling or fault-injection etc. only:
constexpr bool isDebugging = false; // somehow a global flag
void foo(int arg) {
if( isDebugging ) {
// Albeit 'dead' section, it may not appear in production binary!
// (size, security, safety...)
// 'if constexpr..' not an option (C++11)
std::cout << "Arg was " << arg << std::endl;
}
// normal code here...
}
I can look at the disassembly, sure. But being an upstream platform software it's hard to control all targets, compilers and their options one might use. The fear is big that due to any reason a downstream project has a code bloat or performance issue.
Bottom line: Is it possible to write the software in a way, that certain code is known to be optimized away in a safe manner as a #if would do? Or a unit tests, which give a fail if optimization is not as expected?
[Timing tests come to my mind for the first problem, but being bare-metal I don't have convenient tools yet.]
There may be a more elegant way, and it's not a unit test, but if you're just looking for that particular string, and you can make it unique,
strings $COMPILED_BINARY | grep "Arg was"
should show you if the string is being included
if constexpr is the canonical C++ expression (since C++17) for this kind of test.
constexpr bool DEBUG = /*...*/;
int main() {
if constexpr(DEBUG) {
std::cerr << "We are in debugging mode!" << std::endl;
}
}
If DEBUG is false, then the code to print to the console won't generate at all. So if you have things like log statements that you need for checking the behavior of your code, but which you don't want to interact with in production code, you can hide them inside if constexpr expressions to eliminate the code entirely once the code is moved to production.
Looking at your question, I see several (sub-)questions in it that require an answer. Not all answers might be possible with your bare-metal compilers as hardware vendors don't care that much about C++.
The first question is: How do I write code in a way that I'm sure it gets optimized. The obvious answer here is to put everything in a single compilation unit so the caller can see the implementation.
The second question is: How can I force a compiler to optimize. Here constexpr is a bless. Depending on whether you have support for C++11, C++14, C++17 or even the upcoming C++20, you'll get different feature sets of what you can do in a constexpr function. For the usage:
constexpr char c = std::string_view{"my_very_long_string"}[7];
With the code above, c is defined as a constexpr variable. Because you apply it to the variable, you require some things:
Your compiler should optimize the code so the value of c is known at compile time. This even holds true for -O0 builds!
All functions used for calculate c are constexpr and available. (and by result, enforce the behaviour of the first question)
No undefined behaviour is allowed to be triggered in the calculation of c. (For the given value)
The negative about this is: Your input needs to be known at compile time.
C++17 also provides if constexpr which has similar requirements: condition needs to be calculated at compile time. The result is that 1 branch of the code ain't allowed to be compiled (as it even can contain elements that don't work on the type you are using).
Which than brings us to the question: How do I ensure sufficient optimizations for my program to run fast enough, even if my compiler ain't well behaving. Here the only relevant answer is: create benchmarks and compare the results. Take the effort to setup a CI job that automates this for you. (And yes, you can even use external hardware although not being that easy) In the end, you have some requirements: handling A should take less than X seconds. Do A several times and time it. Even if they don't handle everything, as long as it's within the requirements, its fine.
Note: As this is about debug, you most likely can track the size of an executable as well. As soon as you start using streams, a lot of conversions to string ... your exe size will grow. (And you'll find it a bless as you will immediately find commits which add 10% to the image size)
And than the final question: You have a buggy compiler, it doesn't meet my requirements. Here the only answer is: Replace it. In the end, you can use any compiler to compiler your code to bare metal, as long as the linker scripts work. If you need a start, C++Now 2018: Michael Caisse “Modern C++ in Embedded Systems” gives you a very good idea of what you need to use a different compiler. (Like a recent Clang or GCC, on which you even can log bugs if the optimization ain't good enough)
Insert a reference to external data or function into the block that should be verified to be optimised away. Like this:
extern void nop();
constexpr bool isDebugging = false; // somehow a global flag
void foo(int arg) {
if( isDebugging ) {
nop();
std::cout << "Arg was " << arg << std::endl; // may not appear in production binary!
}
// normal code here...
}
In Debug-Builds, link with an implementation of nop() in a extra compilation unit nop.cpp:
void nop() {}
In Release-Builds, don't provide an implementation.
Release builds will only link if the optimisable code is eliminated.
`- kisch
Here's another nice solution using inline assembly.
This uses assembler directives only, so it might even be kind of portable (checked with clang).
constexpr bool isDebugging = false; // somehow a global flag
void foo(int arg) {
if( isDebugging ) {
asm(".globl _marker\n_marker:\n");
std::cout << "Arg was " << arg << std::endl; // may not appear in production binary!
}
// normal code here...
}
This would leave an exported linker symbol in the compiled executable, if the code isn't optimised away. You can check for this symbol using nm(1).
clang can even stop the compilation right away:
constexpr bool isDebugging = false; // somehow a global flag
void foo(int arg) {
if( isDebugging ) {
asm("_marker=1\n");
std::cout << "Arg was " << arg << std::endl; // may not appear in production binary!
}
asm volatile (
".ifdef _marker\n"
".err \"code not optimised away\"\n"
".endif\n"
);
// normal code here...
}
This is not an answer to "How to ensure some code is optimized away?" but to your summary line "Can a unit test be written that e.g. whole loops are optimized away?".
First, the answer depends on how far you see the scope of unit-testing - so if you put in performance tests, you might have a chance.
If in contrast you understand unit-testing as a way to test the functional behaviour of the code, you don't. For one thing, optimizations (if the compiler works correctly) shall not change the behaviour of standard-conforming code.
With incorrect code (code that has undefined behaviour) optimizers can do what they want. (Well, for code with undefined behaviour the compiler can do it also in the non-optimizing case, but sometimes only the deeper analyses peformed during optimization make it possible for the compiler to detect that some code has undefined behaviour.) Thus, if you write unit-tests for some piece of code with undefined behaviour, the test results may differ when you run the tests with and without optimization. But, strictly speaking, this only tells you that the compiler translated the code both times in a different way - it does not guarantee you that the code is optimized in the way you want it to be.
Here's another different way that also covers the first example.
You can verify (at runtime) that the code has been eliminated, by comparing two labels placed around it.
This relies on the GCC extension "Labels as Values" https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Labels-as-Values.html
before:
for(size_t i = 0; i<elements; i++)
buffer[i].~T();
behind:
if (intptr_t(&&behind) != intptr_t(&&before)) abort();
It would be nice if you could check this in a static_assert(), but sadly the difference of &&label expressions is not accepted as compile-time constant.
GCC insists on inserting a runtime comparison, even though both labels are in fact at the same address.
Interestingly, if you compare the addresses (type void*) directly, without casting them to intptr_t, GCC falsely optimises away the if() as "always true", whereas clang correctly optimises away the complete if() as "always false", even at -O1.
In C++, imagine I have a function like
bool Aclass::func(){
return true;
}
which is called in the main in this way
if(!func()) {
//do stuff
}
Does the compiler generate these lines of code?
Like all optimization questions, it depends on the compiler and the flags given. Having said that, a decent modern compiler will be able to remove dead code like this if optimizations flags are provided. Try https://godbolt.org/ to see for yourself which compiler and which flags will succeed in removing the dead code.
The compiler at compilation step will treat those lines of code as valid. For example, if you have an error in those lines of code then it will be flagged by the compiler. So for example, the following will not compile
if (false) {
auto s = std::string{1.0};
}
But most optimizers will not add that code in the compiled form for that source file. However related code is still added if needed, for example
if (true) { ... }
else { ... }
here the else code for the else statement will essentially be converted to
{
...
}
when the code gets converted to its compiled form.
#Yakk brings up a great point. The compiler not including such code is called dead code elimination. However labels can still be used to reach the body code.
Also note that in these situations where an expression is evaluated at compile time. Then you can use a new construct from C++17 known as if constexpr. However as I mentioned with compiler errors persisting even in dead code in runtime ifs the situation is different for if constexprs, for more read the code examples here http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/if#Constexpr_If and this answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/38317834/5501675
Let's say I have a function:
template <bool stuff>
inline void doSomething() {
if(stuff) {
cout << "Hello" << endl;
}
else {
cout << "Goodbye" << endl;
}
}
And I call it like this:
doSomething<true>();
doSomething<false>();
It would pring out:
Hello
Goodbye
What I'm really wondering is does the compiler fully optimize this?
When I call the templated function with true, will it create a function that just outputs "Hello" and avoids the if statement and the code for "Goodbye"?
This would be really useful for this one giant function I just wrote that's supposed to be very optimized and avoid as many unnecessary if statement checks as possible. I have a very good feeling it would, at least in a release build with optimizations if not in a debug build with no optimizations.
Disclaimer: Noone can guarantee anything.
That said, this an obvious and easy optimization for any compiler. It's quite safe to say that it will be optimized away, unless the optimizer is, well, practically useless.
Since your "true" and "false" are constants, you are unambiguously creating an obvious dead branch in each class, and the compiler should optimize it away. Should is taken literally here - I would consider it a major, major problem if an "optimising" compiler did not do dead branch removal.
In other words, if your compiler cannot optimize this, it is the use of that compiler that should be evaluated, not the code.
So, I would say your gut feeling is correct: while yes, no "guarantees" as such can be made on each and every compiler, I would not use a compiler incapable of performing simplistic optimizations in any production environment, and of course not in any performance critical one. (In release builds of course).
So, use it. Any modern optimizing compiler will optimize it away because it is a trivial optimization. If in doubt, check disassembly, and if it is not optimized, change the compiler to something more modern.
In general, if you are writing any kind of performance-critical code, you must rely, at least to some extent, on compiler optimizations.
This is inherently up to the compiler, so you'd have to check the compiler's documentation or the generated code. But in simple cases like this, you can easily implement the optimization yourself:
template <bool stuff>
inline void doSomething();
template<>
inline void doSomething<true>() {
cout << "Hello" << endl;
}
template<>
inline void doSomething<false>() {
cout << "Goodbye" << endl;
}
But "optimization" isn't really the right word to use since this might actually degrade performance. It's only an optimization if it actually benefits your code performance.
Indeed, it really createa two functions, but
premature optimization is the root of all evil
especially if your changing your code structure because of a simple if statement. I doubt that this will affect performance. Also the boolean must be static, that means you cant take a runtime evaluated var and pass it to the function. How should the linker know which function to call? In this case youll have to manually evaluate it and call the appropiate function on your own.
Compilers are really good at constant folding. That is, in this case it would surprise me if the check would stay until after optimization. A non-optimized build might still have the check. The easiest way to verify is to create assembler output and check.
That said, it is worth noting that the compiler has to check both branches for correctness, even if it only ever uses one branch. This frequently shows up, e.g., when using slightly different algorithms for Random Access Iterators and other iterators. The condition would depend on a type-trait and one of the branches may fail to compile depending on operations tested for by the traits. The committee has discussed turning off this checking under the term static if although there is no consensus, yet, on how the features would look exactly (if it gets added).
If I understand you correctly you want (in essence) end up with 'two' functions that are optimised for either a true or a false input so that they don't need check that flag?
Aside from any trivial optimisation that may yield (I'm against premature otimisation - I believe in maintainability before measurement before optimisation), I would say why not refactor your function to actually be two functions? If they have common code then then that code could be refactored out too. However if the requirement is such that the refactoring is non optimal then I'd replace that with a #define refactoring.
See, what I don't get is, why should programs like the following be legal?
int main()
{
static const int i = 0;
i < i > i;
}
I mean, surely, nobody actually has any current programs that have expressions with no side effects in them, since that would be very pointless, and it would make parsing & compiling the language much easier. So why not just disallow them? What benefit does the language actually gain from allowing this kind of syntax?
Another example being like this:
int main() {
static const int i = 0;
int x = (i);
}
What is the actual benefit of such statements?
And things like the most vexing parse. Does anybody, ever, declare functions in the middle of other functions? I mean, we got rid of things like implicit function declaration, and things like that. Why not just get rid of them for C++0x?
Probably because banning then would make the specification more complex, which would make compilers more complex.
it would make parsing & compiling the
language much easier
I don't see how. Why is it easier to parse and compile i < i > i if you're required to issue a diagnostic, than it is to parse it if you're allowed to do anything you damn well please provided that the emitted code has no side-effects?
The Java compiler forbids unreachable code (as opposed to code with no effect), which is a mixed blessing for the programmer, and requires a little bit of extra work from the compiler than what a C++ compiler is actually required to do (basic block dependency analysis). Should C++ forbid unreachable code? Probably not. Even though C++ compilers certainly do enough optimization to identify unreachable basic blocks, in some cases they may do too much. Should if (foo) { ...} be an illegal unreachable block if foo is a false compile-time constant? What if it's not a compile-time constant, but the optimizer has figured out how to calculate the value, should it be legal and the compiler has to realise that the reason it's removing it is implementation-specific, so as not to give an error? More special cases.
nobody actually has any current
programs that have expressions with no
side effects in them
Loads. For example, if NDEBUG is true, then assert expands to a void expression with no effect. So that's yet more special cases needed in the compiler to permit some useless expressions, but not others.
The rationale, I believe, is that if it expanded to nothing then (a) compilers would end up throwing warnings for things like if (foo) assert(bar);, and (b) code like this would be legal in release but not in debug, which is just confusing:
assert(foo) // oops, forgot the semi-colon
foo.bar();
things like the most vexing parse
That's why it's called "vexing". It's a backward-compatibility issue really. If C++ now changed the meaning of those vexing parses, the meaning of existing code would change. Not much existing code, as you point out, but the C++ committee takes a fairly strong line on backward compatibility. If you want a language that changes every five minutes, use Perl ;-)
Anyway, it's too late now. Even if we had some great insight that the C++0x committee had missed, why some feature should be removed or incompatibly changed, they aren't going to break anything in the FCD unless the FCD is definitively in error.
Note that for all of your suggestions, any compiler could issue a warning for them (actually, I don't understand what your problem is with the second example, but certainly for useless expressions and for vexing parses in function bodies). If you're right that nobody does it deliberately, the warnings would cause no harm. If you're wrong that nobody does it deliberately, your stated case for removing them is incorrect. Warnings in popular compilers could pave the way for removing a feature, especially since the standard is authored largely by compiler-writers. The fact that we don't always get warnings for these things suggests to me that there's more to it than you think.
It's convenient sometimes to put useless statements into a program and compile it just to make sure they're legal - e.g. that the types involve can be resolved/matched etc.
Especially in generated code (macros as well as more elaborate external mechanisms, templates where Policies or types may introduce meaningless expansions in some no-op cases), having less special uncompilable cases to avoid keeps things simpler
There may be some temporarily commented code that removes the meaningful usage of a variable, but it could be a pain to have to similarly identify and comment all the variables that aren't used elsewhere.
While in your examples you show the variables being "int" immediately above the pointless usage, in practice the types may be much more complicated (e.g. operator<()) and whether the operations have side effects may even be unknown to the compiler (e.g. out-of-line functions), so any benefit's limited to simpler cases.
C++ needs a good reason to break backwards (and retained C) compatibility.
Why should doing nothing be treated as a special case? Furthermore, whilst the above cases are easy to spot, one could imagine far more complicated programs where it's not so easy to identify that there are no side effects.
As an iteration of the C++ standard, C++0x have to be backward compatible. Nobody can assert that the statements you wrote does not exist in some piece of critical software written/owned by, say, NASA or DoD.
Anyway regarding your very first example, the parser cannot assert that i is a static constant expression, and that i < i > i is a useless expression -- e.g. if i is a templated type, i < i > i is an "invalid variable declaration", not a "useless computation", and still not a parse error.
Maybe the operator was overloaded to have side effects like cout<<i; This is the reason why they cannot be removed now. On the other hand C# forbids non-assignment or method calls expresions to be used as statements and I believe this is a good thing as it makes the code more clear and semantically correct. However C# had the opportunity to forbid this from the very beginning which C++ does not.
Expressions with no side effects can turn up more often than you think in templated and macro code. If you've ever declared std::vector<int>, you've instantiated template code with no side effects. std::vector must destruct all its elements when releasing itself, in case you stored a class for type T. This requires, at some point, a statement similar to ptr->~T(); to invoke the destructor. int has no destructor though, so the call has no side effects and will be removed entirely by the optimizer. It's also likely it will be inside a loop, then the entire loop has no side effects, so the entire loop is removed by the optimizer.
So if you disallowed expressions with no side effects, std::vector<int> wouldn't work, for one.
Another common case is assert(a == b). In release builds you want these asserts to disappear - but you can't re-define them as an empty macro, otherwise statements like if (x) assert(a == b); suddenly put the next statement in to the if statement - a disaster! In this case assert(x) can be redefined as ((void)0), which is a statement that has no side effects. Now the if statement works correctly in release builds too - it just does nothing.
These are just two common cases. There are many more you probably don't know about. So, while expressions with no side effects seem redundant, they're actually functionally important. An optimizer will remove them entirely so there's no performance impact, too.