> 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 >>> <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> 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 (Support?). >> 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. — Mehdi _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
