justin.holewinski at gmail.com
Mon Jan 21 06:05:52 PST 2013
It also provides a level of consistency. Different systems/compilers can
use different STL implementations with different characteristics. The LLVM
containers are a known quantity when trying to assess performance.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <
kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 1/21/2013 12:35 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> I'm confused here. You're acting as though we don't use the STL. In
>> fact, we do use std::string, std::vector, std::map etc when they are the
>> right solution for the job.
> I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the decisions made at the
> beginning of LLVM. My working assumption is that ADT didn't exist when
> LLVM started (whereas STL did). In such case, I'm assuming that creation
> of ADT was motivated by needs of LLVM that STL didn't meet. I'm trying to
> understand what the needs were and where STL was considered inadequate.
> Creating a new set of containers is an investment, so, again, I'm assuming
> that there were specific motives that caused that investment to be made.
> Benjamin's answer was actually very informative, that was that kind of
> information I was looking for.
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted
> by The Linux Foundation
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev