<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Nov 13, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">We've pretty happy now with a patch that adds two wrappers around SmallVector that make it 1) more convenient to use and 2) will tend to mitigate misuse of SmallVector. We think it's ready for wider discussion: <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D90884" class="">https://reviews.llvm.org/D90884</a><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">SVec<T> is a convenience alias for SmallVector<T, N> with N chosen automatically to keep its size under 64 Bytes (that heuristic is easy to change though). The recommendation in the patch is to use this "on the stack, where a "small" number of elements are expected".<br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Hey Sean,</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I agree with other comments that his approach unnecessarily fragments the API surface area for a core class. You’re doing two things here: 1) adding a new name for an existing thing, and 2) adding a default.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>My major concern and objection is about #1, since the codebase will get to be a mishmash of the two. I’d rather keep the world consistent here and have an opinionated “one way to do it”.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Thoughts/suggestions:</div><div> - Adding the default seems very reasonable to me, and I think that 64 bytes is a good default. I think you should change the behavior so that SmallVector<LargeThing> defaults to a single inline element instead of zero though. Perhaps generate a static_assert when it is crazy large.</div><div><br class=""></div><div> - The name SmallVector has always been confusing, InlinedVector is more principled, but is even more verbose for such a common type. If you think it is worth shrinkifying the name SmallVector, then I think the best thing to do is *rename* SmallVector (perhaps to IVector?) everywhere in the codebase. I don’t think that introducing a redundant name is a good thing (except to smooth the transition).</div><div><br class=""></div><div> - If people are concerned about the default being bad, then you could choose to make “SmallVector<T, -1>” be the thing that autosizes. I tend to agree with your viewpoint that the N chosen is arbitrary in almost all cases anyway though, so I wouldn’t go this way.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class="">Vec<T> is a convenience alias for SmallVector<T, 0>. It lets us get the (little-known?) benefits of SmallVector even when it has no inline elements (see <a href="https://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#llvm-adt-smallvector-h" class="">https://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#llvm-adt-smallvector-h</a>). The recommendation in the patch is to use this when the SmallVector is on the heap.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>These benefits are tiny, I really don’t think it is worth introducing a new name for this. I think this is better handled with a change to CodingStandards (saying “don’t use std::vector”) and the programmers manual.</div><br class=""></div><div>-Chris</div><br class=""></body></html>