[LLVMdev] std::string

[Krzysztof Parzyszek]

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.

-Krzysztof

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation