Note that we already do use at least those STL containers for which we don't have an equivalent in the tree. I've seen usage of at least: std::map, std::set, and std::bitset.
I think that Nick has a good point about reporting memory usage, but I think that the right solution to this problem is to add Mozilla equivalents for the STL data structures that we need to "fork", not to skew all your design to use the data structures that we have instead of the ones you need. "Forking" STL data structures into Mozilla code seems reasonable to me. Besides memory reporting, it also gives us another benefit: guarantee of consistent implementation across platforms and compilers. Benoit 2013/12/10 Nicholas Nethercote <n.netherc...@gmail.com> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Chris Pearce <cpea...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Can we start using C++ STL containers like std::set, std::map, > std::queue in > > Mozilla code please? > > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Using_CXX_in_Mozilla_code#C.2B.2B_and_Mozilla_standard_libraries > has the details. > > "As a general rule of thumb, prefer the use of MFBT or XPCOM APIs to > standard C++ APIs. Some of our APIs include extra methods not found in > the standard API (such as those reporting the size of data > structures). " > > I'm particularly attuned to that last point. Not all structures grow > large enough to be worth reporting, but many are. In the past I've > converted STL containers to Mozilla containers just to get memory > reporting. > > Nick > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
