kparzysz at codeaurora.org
Sun Jan 20 07:46:19 PST 2013
On 1/19/2013 10:00 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> Were the "small n" characteristics the main motivation?
> It is one of the motivations.
What were the others?
The reason I ask is that STL comes all ready, with containers and
algorithms. They may not be optimal for every task, but they do their
job and they are part of the standard. There may be some price to pay
in terms of performance/memory usage/etc. for a specific application,
but overall it may be worth it. Evidently, in case of LLVM, someone
(you?) decided that having local set of containers is a better idea. I
simply want to understand the reasons behind this decision.
I quickly looked over the library section on containers in the C++03
standard and I didn't see any paragraphs regarding the allocation
strategy for classes like "set" or "map". The LLVM page seems to
contain information that was based on some specific implementation (or
several implementations), but was not mandated by the standard itself.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
More information about the llvm-dev