What is the least memory STL implementation?

Question

I am working on a very large computing library that uses STL heavily. The library is built using MSVC2003 and uses its STL implementation. I am looking for an alternative implementation of STL that will help the library reduce its memory requirements and increase its performance.

It is currently not possible to switch to a newer version of MSVC.

I would like some feedback on the use of the real world not to be based on benchmarks, if possible.

EDIT: To make this a little clearer, for example, some STL implementations (like STLSoft) offer specific optimizations for string concatenation; they may sound minor, but they can lead to big improvements. STLPort is another good example where they clearly state their goal: having the fastest implementation of STL, there is stdlib ++, etc .... they all can be good candidates, but I don’t have time to check them all, I need some community help on this.

Answer 1

STLPort . Differences in memory usage were not measured, but it is definitely faster (yes, use in the real world).

Answer 2

, MSVC.

, "", STL. , , , , , , MSVC.

, ... , , .

, , , , - Intel, (!), (, !) .

, , . STL , . - .

Answer 3

? STL, . .

Answer 4

, ? , , , .

Answer 5

, , . , , , . - 1.5 x , ( , ), , , , , - .

- . , . , , . slist, . tt , . , _ *

MSVC #define _SECURE_SCL = 0 , (, ..)

/. , , . , rb node, node . "" - node. , .

Answer 6

STL, MSVC2003, . , .

( ), , STL, - , STL ( ).

, , , , STL.

Answer 7

, STL , (, STL- , ) , ?

On the one hand, I see that it becomes a slippery slope, where you make non-standard modifications to your fork of the STL library, thereby creating problems. However, the importance of performance for your application may outweigh the risk of this.