Yep, removing it seems like a good solution. And please do feel free to add any
newlines and any files that are missing them without need for reviews.
> On Aug 11, 2015, at 9:21 PM, Bruce Mitchener via lldb-dev
> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> This is probably for the Apple People since it relates to
After the previous discussion I agree that evaluating the arguments is
unacceptable. But you are correct here that a macro would solve this. In
fact, most C++ log libraries use macros I guess for this very reason.
I decided to make some macros for the windows plugin which you can look at
it in P
The previous discussion (with patch) was here:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/lldb-commits/Week-of-Mon-20150427/018839.html
Jim
> On Aug 12, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Vince Harron via lldb-dev
> wrote:
>
> We could solve booth the efficiency concerns and the conciseness with a
> macro. (Gasp!)
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:33 AM, AlexDenisov <1101.deb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just found out that all documentation and html refer to an old mailing lists.
> Probably, commits 243999-244010 needs to be picked up into release_37 as well.
Thanks! These have now been merged to 3.7.
__
We could solve booth the efficiency concerns and the conciseness with a
macro. (Gasp!)
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
I don't remember to any discussion about it but I might just missed it
(don't see it in the archive either).
>From the efficiency perspective in most of the case evaluating the
arguments for Printf should be very fast (printing local variable) and the
few case where it isn't the case we can keep t
From an efficiency perspective, the arguments to Printf will still need
to be evaluated. Some of those arguments touch multiple areas and will
require significant effort to change into a new format, which is
essentially the exact same as we have now.
Was there not a decision to stick with what
Hi All,
At the moment logging in LLDB done in the following way:
Log* log = GetLogIfAllCategoriesSet(...);
if (log)
log->Printf(...);
This approach is clean and easy to understand but have the disadvantage of
being a bit verbose. What is the general opinion about changing it to
something like
Just found out that all documentation and html refer to an old mailing lists.
Probably, commits 243999-244010 needs to be picked up into release_37 as well.
List of commits, just in case:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=243999
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=re
