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.
pl 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. > > Greg > >> On Oct 7, 2016, at 10:29 PM, Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev >> <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.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 >>>>> <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 > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
