Hi David, IIUC Eric Feiveson drives Visual Studio visualizers. I'll email him (and will also demo to STL in Oulu).
Best, Mike On Monday, June 13, 2016, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Michael Spertus <m...@spertus.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','m...@spertus.com');>> wrote: > >> Hi David, >> While I understand the initial reasoning. I have found that this is like >> a hundred times better for working on Clang in practice and can't imagine >> working without it. The point is that many Clang data structures contain >> SmallVectors and having to do zero expansion clicks instead of multiple >> each time you take a step through the code is really helpful. If you want >> me to back it out and rereview we can, but I'd encourage you to try it out >> first. >> > > Oh, I don't use MSVC at all, so it's totally up to you, I'd just be > curious if the visualizers for SmallVector were different for those of > std::vector. Not that the authors of the inbuilt visualizers in MSVC have a > monopoly on correct/good design here. > > Might be worth roping STL (Stephan) into the thread to discuss MSVC > visualizers of the STL - and/or filing a bug, if we think there are better > ways to visualize containers than those provided by MSVC. > > >> >> To ask more about the aside, I'm sorry if I violated community norms. Let >> me tell you my reasoning, and you can clarify how I should handle in the >> future: Aaron approved me to do post-commit reviews on natvis changes, >> which I have done frequently. For this change, I wasn't putting it into >> phabricator because I thought pre-commit approval is required but more as a >> heads up. Should I change that to be if I don't feel comfortable submitting >> without phabricator, then do the full review process? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mike >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:16 AM, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dblai...@gmail.com');>> wrote: >> >>> As for the original change proposed: My guiding principle would be "do >>> whatever std::vector does". (& that's what I did when implementing GDB >>> pretty printers for SmallVector/SmallString/ArrayRef, etc... ) >>> >>> An aside: We generally don't do time limited reviews like this. Either >>> something needs review because you're not sure about it, or it doesn't. It >>> sounds like the feedback you were looking for probably would've been fine a >>> post-commit review feedback just as easily & perhaps might've been a better >>> option. (while in this case it was fine - it's sort of a community >>> habit/standards thing - we don't want to create the idea that lack of >>> feedback is consent/approval in the review process) >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Mike Spertus via cfe-commits < >>> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org');>> wrote: >>> >>>> mspertus closed this revision. >>>> mspertus added a comment. >>>> >>>> revision 272525 >>>> >>>> >>>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D21256 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> cfe-commits mailing list >>>> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org >>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org');> >>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>>> >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
