Re: protected alloca class for malloc fallback

[Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>]

On 08/05/2016 04:07 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On August 5, 2016 8:15:54 PM GMT+02:00, Oleg Endo <oleg.endo@t-online.de> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-08-05 at 19:55 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Please don't use std::string.  For string building you can use
>>> obstacks.
>>>
>>
>> Just out of curiosity ... why?  I remember there was some discussion
>> about it, what was the conclusion?  Is that now a general rule or does
>> it depend on the context where strings are used?
>
> Because you make a messy mix of string handling variants.  Std::string is not powerful enough to capture all uses, it is vastly more expensive to embed into structs and it pulls in too much headers.

Is this negotiable?  I would prefer to use the standard library 
implementation of things when possible.  At the very least, it's easier 
for others familiar with the C++ STL.  I mean, we are using C++ after 
all :).

I understand a reluctance in cases where it would be very inefficient, 
or where std::string is not up to speed.  In such cases it makes sense 
to use obstacks or equivalents, but in straightforward things on a non 
critical path?

I would gladly do either, but I would strongly prefer std::string when 
it does not overly pessimize code.

 > (Oh, and I hate I/o streams even more)

Yeah, but that sounds like a personal preference? ;-).

Let me know.  I'll do either if it's an agreed upon mandate from the 
global deities :).

Aldy