labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27459#614549, @zturner wrote:
> A couple comments: > > 1. If we're going to use `formatv` (yay!) then let's standardize. No point > mising `formatv` and streaming, especially when the former will almost always > be less verbose. In this change, I deliberately tried to mix styles, to show different ways of doing things. I also wanted to avoid prescribing the right API to use, as I've found llvm::formatv to be longer in the simple cases. However, hiding it in a macro is a good idea, and would remove that problem. > > > 2. One of the concerns that came up last time was that of evaluating the > arguments to the logging functions even in the case where it didn't get > logged, because sometimes just calling the function to evaluate the parameter > can be expensive. To get around that you could pass the arguments directly > to the macro instead of streaming them, and the macro could wrap everything > in a lambda. The macro expands to something like `if (!log) /*do nothing*/; else log << whatever`, so the streaming part only gets executed if logging is actually enabled. That said, I like the API you propose as well (and it could probably use something similar under the hood, to avoid messing around with lambdas). https://reviews.llvm.org/D27459 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
