My current plan is to first clean up the usage of llvm::TimeValue and
replace it with std::chrono, then proceed on to LLDB. I have the llvm
stuff mostly done locally, I just need to find a bit of time to test
it out on windows. Will update when that is done.
On 11 October 2016 at 19:36, Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com> wrote:
> I am fine with TimeValue going away. I would love to just use STL std::chrono
> stuff if we can get away with it. If there is a bunch of code that gets
> re-written all of the time, then using the LLVM TimeValue class is fine if it
> is needed.
>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 10:29 PM, Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote:
>>> On 7 October 2016 at 21:42, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.am...@apple.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 9:30 PM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
>>>>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> The llvm-dev thread seems to have fizzed out - I would assume they are
>>>>> not interested in std::chrono.
>>>> I suggest a totally different course of action: any utility (except
>>>> specific to the debugger for some reason) should be submitted into LLVM
>>>> I may be happy to have it available next months in LLVM, and I may not
>>>> think about looking in every subproject.
>>>> The question is not if “they” (I rather have you guys say “we”) are not
>>>> interested, but rather “is anyone opposing to having utilities wrapping /
>>>> manipulating std::chrono in LLVM”.
>>> I like that idea. I've added you to the reviews so you can see what
>>> kind of utility functions I am talking about. BTW, LLVM seems to have
>>> a TimeValue class as well (presumably because not all compilers used
>>> to support std::chrono)
>> I believe TimeValue was created before std::chrono was standardized (first
>> committed in 2004!)
>>> - one possibility would be to start using that
>>> instead, although I would prefer std::chrono.
>> Indeed, I believe we tend to move to the standard version of our utilities
>> when the feature is complete in the compiler versions we support.
>> It is also possible that not all of TimeValue features are supported by
>> std::chrono, I haven't compared in detail.
>> lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev mailing list