#pragma once vs include guards?

I don't think it will make a significant difference in compile time but #pragma once is very well supported across compilers but not actually part of the standard. The preprocessor may be a little faster with it as it is more simple to understand your exact intent.

#pragma once is less prone to making mistakes and it is less code to type.

To speed up compile time more just forward declare instead of including in .h files when you can.

I prefer to use #pragma once.

See this wikipedia article about the possibility of using both.

Until the day #pragma once becomes standard (that's not currently a priority for the future standards), I suggest you use it AND use guards, this way:

#ifndef BLAH_H
#define BLAH_H
#pragma once

// ...

#endif

The reasons are :

• #pragma once is not standard, so it is possible that some compiler don't provide the functionality. That said, all major compiler supports it. If a compiler don't know it, at least it will be ignored.
• As there is no standard behavior for #pragma once, you shouldn't assume that the behavior will be the same on all compiler. The guards will ensure at least that the basic assumption is the same for all compilers that at least implement the needed preprocessor instructions for guards.
• On most compilers, #pragma once will speed up compilation (of one cpp) because the compiler will not reopen the file containing this instruction. So having it in a file might help, or not, depending on the compiler. I heard g++ can do the same optimization when guards are detected but it have to be confirmed.

Using the two together you get the best of each compiler for this.

Now, if you don't have some automatic script to generate the guards, it might be more convenient to just use #pragma once. Just know what that means for portable code. (I'm using VAssistX to generate the guards and pragma once quickly)

You should almost always think your code in a portable way (because you don't know what the future is made of) but if you really think that it's not meant to be compiled with another compiler (code for very specific embedded hardware for example) then you should just check your compiler documentation about #pragma once to know what you're really doing.

If you're positive that you will never use this code in a compiler that doesn't support it (Windows/VS, GCC, and Clang are examples of compilers that do support it), then you can certainly use #pragma once without worries.

You can also just use both (see example below), so that you get portability and compilation speedup on compatible systems

#pragma once
#ifndef _HEADER_H_
#define _HEADER_H_

...

#endif

I generally don't bother with #pragma once as my code sometimes does have to compile with something other than MSVC or GCC (compilers for embedded systems don't always have the #pragma).

So I have to use #include guards anyway. I could also use #pragma once as some answers suggest, but there doesn't seem to be much reason and it will often cause needless warnings on the compilers that don't support it.

I'm not sure what time savings the pragma might bring. I've heard that compilers generally already recognize when a header has nothing but comments outside of the guard macros and will do the #pragma once equivalent in that case (ie., never processing the file again). But I'm not sure if it's true or just a case of compilers could do this optimization.

In either case, it's just easier for me to use #include guards which will work everywhere and not worry about it further.

I think the first thing you should do is check to see if this is really going to make a difference, ie. you should first test the performance. One of the searches in google threw up this.

In the results page, the columns are sligthly off for me, but it's clear that at least up to VC6 microsoft was not implementing the include guard optimisations that the other tools were using. Where the include guard was internal it took 50 times as long compared with where the include guard was external (external include guards are at least as good as #pragma). But let's consider the possible affect of this:

According to the tables presented, the time to open the include and check it is 50 times that of a #pragma equivalent. But the actual time to do so was measured at 1 microsecond per file back in 1999!

So, how many duplicate headers will a single TU have? This depends on your style, but if we say that an average TU has 100 duplicates then in 1999 we're potentially paying 100 microseconds per TU. With HDD improvements this is probably significantly lower by now, but even then with precompiled headers and correct dependency tracking the total cumulative cost of this for a project is almost certainly an insigificant part of your build time.

Now, on the flip side, as unlikely as it may be, if you ever move to a compiler that doesn't support #pragma once then consider how much time will it take to update your entire source base to have include guards rather than #pragma?

There is no reason that Microsoft could not implement an include guard optimisation in the same way that GCC and every other compiler does (actually can anybody confirm if their more recent versions implement this?). IMHO, #pragma once does very little other than limit your choice of alternative compiler.

#pragma once allows the compiler to skip the file completely when it occurs again - instead of parsing the file until it reaches the #include guards.

As such, the semantics are a little different, but they are identical if they are used they way they are intended to be used.

Combining both is probably the safest route to go, as in the worst case (a compiler flagging unknown pragmas as actual errors, not just warnings) you would just to have to remove the #pragma's themselves.

When you limit your platforms to, say "mainstream compilers on the desktop", you could safely omit the #include guards, but I feel uneasy on that, too.

OT: if you have other tips/experiences to share on speeding up builds, I'd be curious.