aprantl abandoned this revision. aprantl added a comment. In D117632#3255158 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117632#3255158>, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> Do you actually care about the timers or is this really about getting these > methods instrumented with signposts on our platform? If it's the latter, I > think it would make more sense to put that call in the `LLDB_RECORD_*` macros > (which I'm planning to rename imminently). If this is about instrumenting the > API, we can use the old reproducer logic to differentiate between calls made > across the API boundary. Maybe it would make sense to only instrument > external calls. > > If it's just the signposts I'm not worried about performance, there's no way > that's slower than the old reproducer instrumentation :-) That's right, I'm only interested in signposts. I'll put this patch aside for now, it would make sense to integrate this functionality into the properly renamed macros! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D117632/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D117632 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
