Optimize a small-string C++ class

Read the full interview experience this question came from →

Quick Overview

This question evaluates low-level C/C++ systems programming skills, including memory management, data layout, small-string optimization, efficient copying semantics, alignment/padding, and cache-aware performance reasoning.

Optimize a small-string C++ class

Company: NVIDIA

Role: Software Engineer

Category: Software Engineering Fundamentals

Difficulty: medium

Interview Round: Onsite

You are implementing a high-performance C/C++ string type that uses a **small-string optimization**: short strings are stored inline in a fixed buffer, and long strings are stored on the heap. Given the (simplified) class layout below: ```cpp const size_t BUFF_SIZE = 128; class MyString { private: char buf[BUFF_SIZE]; // inline storage for “small” strings size_t length; // number of bytes (not including '\0') char* ptr; // heap storage for “large” strings public: MyString(const char* s, size_t len) { length = len; if (len < BUFF_SIZE) { strncpy(buf, s, len); buf[len] = '\0'; } else { ptr = (char*)malloc(len + 1); if (ptr == nullptr) throw "not enough memory"; memcpy(ptr, s, len); ptr[len] = '\0'; } } }; ``` Answer the following: 1. `strncpy(buf, s, len)` copies characters one-by-one conceptually. How would you speed up copying for the small-string case? 2. Is using `memcpy(buf, s, len)` equivalent to `strncpy(buf, s, len)`? If not, what are the behavioral differences and safety pitfalls? 3. In a `cmp`/string-compare function, why can comparing **short strings (< 256 bytes)** be significantly faster than comparing long strings, even if you “ignore the length difference” conceptually? 4. If `BUFF_SIZE == 1`, what is the likely `sizeof(MyString)` on a 32-bit machine vs a 64-bit machine? Explain the role of alignment/padding. 5. If `BUFF_SIZE == 8` but typical strings are ~10–15 characters, how could you redesign the layout to reduce object size and improve cache locality? (Hint: avoid paying for both inline storage and a pointer when only one is needed.)

Overview: This question evaluates low-level C/C++ systems programming skills, including memory management, data layout, small-string optimization, efficient copying semantics, alignment/padding, and cache-aware performance reasoning.

Read the full NVIDIA Software Engineer interview experience this question came from

|Home/Software Engineering Fundamentals/NVIDIA
NVIDIA logo
NVIDIA
Dec 18, 2025
mediumSoftware EngineerOnsiteSoftware Engineering Fundamentals
15
0

You are implementing a high-performance C/C++ string type that uses a small-string optimization: short strings are stored inline in a fixed buffer, and long strings are stored on the heap.

Given the (simplified) class layout below:

const size_t BUFF_SIZE = 128;

class MyString {
private:
  char   buf[BUFF_SIZE];  // inline storage for “small” strings
  size_t length;          // number of bytes (not including '\0')
  char*  ptr;             // heap storage for “large” strings

public:
  MyString(const char* s, size_t len) {
    length = len;
    if (len < BUFF_SIZE) {
      strncpy(buf, s, len);
      buf[len] = '\0';
    } else {
      ptr = (char*)malloc(len + 1);
      if (ptr == nullptr) throw "not enough memory";
      memcpy(ptr, s, len);
      ptr[len] = '\0';
    }
  }
};

Answer the following:

  1. strncpy(buf, s, len) copies characters one-by-one conceptually. How would you speed up copying for the small-string case?
  2. Is using memcpy(buf, s, len) equivalent to strncpy(buf, s, len) ? If not, what are the behavioral differences and safety pitfalls?
  3. In a cmp /string-compare function, why can comparing short strings (< 256 bytes) be significantly faster than comparing long strings, even if you “ignore the length difference” conceptually?
  4. If BUFF_SIZE == 1 , what is the likely sizeof(MyString) on a 32-bit machine vs a 64-bit machine? Explain the role of alignment/padding.
  5. If BUFF_SIZE == 8 but typical strings are ~10–15 characters, how could you redesign the layout to reduce object size and improve cache locality? (Hint: avoid paying for both inline storage and a pointer when only one is needed.)
Loading comments...