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) - one possibility would be to start using that instead, although I would prefer std::chrono. _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
