[docs] Document usage of SmallVectorImpl in interfaces.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@177775 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

1 files changed, 27 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/ProgrammersManual.rst b/docs/ProgrammersManual.rst
index 4fc4597..eed12e9 100644
--- a/docs/ProgrammersManual.rst
+++ b/docs/ProgrammersManual.rst
@@ -626,6 +626,33 @@ SmallVectors are most useful when on the stack.
 SmallVector also provides a nice portable and efficient replacement for
 ``alloca``.
 
+.. note::
+
+   Prefer to use ``SmallVectorImpl<T>`` in interfaces.
+
+   In APIs that don't care about the "small size" (most?), prefer to use
+   the ``SmallVectorImpl<T>`` class, which is basically just the "vector
+   header" (and methods) without the elements allocated after it. Note that
+   ``SmallVector<T, N>`` inherits from ``SmallVectorImpl<T>`` so the
+   conversion is implicit and costs nothing. E.g.
+
+   .. code-block:: c++
+
+      // BAD: Clients cannot pass e.g. SmallVector<Foo, 4>.
+      hardcodedSmallSize(SmallVector<Foo, 2> &Out);
+      // GOOD: Clients can pass any SmallVector<Foo, N>.
+      allowsAnySmallSize(SmallVectorImpl<Foo> &Out);
+
+      void someFunc() {
+        SmallVector<Foo, 8> Vec;
+        hardcodedSmallSize(Vec); // Error.
+        allowsAnySmallSize(Vec); // Works.
+      }
+
+   Even though it has "``Impl``" in the name, this is so widely used that
+   it really isn't "private to the implementation" anymore. A name like
+   ``SmallVectorHeader`` would be more appropriate.
+
 .. _dss_vector:
 
 <vector>