[llvm-dev] RFC: [SmallVector] Adding SVec<T> and Vec<T> convenience wrappers.

Tue Nov 17 14:15:53 PST 2020

> On 2020 Nov  17, at 13:40, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 7:26 AM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org <mailto:clattner at nondot.org>> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> 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: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90884 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90884>
>> 
>> 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".
> 
> Hey Sean,
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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”.
> 
> Thanks Chris. That was my original proposal when I first drafted the patch, and I'm happy to just add the default.
>  
> 
> Thoughts/suggestions:
>  - 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.
> 
> That would work for me.
> 
> Mehdi, would SmallVector<T>, defaulting to a minimum single inline element with static_assert(sizeof(T) < 512) address your concerns?

I'd be a bit concerned about this for two reasons:

- Adding a large inlined element by-default may reinforce one of the problems with SmallVector, that people accidentally put big vectors in places that shouldn't have them. If we're going to make accidentally large inlined vectors more ergonomic, I think we ought to make 0-element versions more ergonomic too.

- The `static_assert` is going to fail differently on different platforms, since `T`'s size will tend to be platform-dependent for large `T`. I'm not sure it'll be predictable enough.

> -- Sean Silva
>  
> 
>  - 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).

I like the idea of a minor rename, although a bit different:
- SmallVectorBase => VectorBase
- SmallVectorImpl => VectorImpl (we could keep both around for a transition period)
- (etc.)
- SmallVector => Vector, but give `Vector` a default small size of 0
- Add SmallVector as a wrapper around Vector that has a nice default for the small size:
```
template <class T>
using SmallVector = Vector<T, DefaultInlinedElementSize<T>>;
```

>  - 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.
> 
>> 
>> 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 https://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#llvm-adt-smallvector-h <https://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#llvm-adt-smallvector-h>). The recommendation in the patch is to use this when the SmallVector is on the heap.
> 
> 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.
> 
> -Chris
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201117/cdcf87b6/attachment.html>