Hi all, I have removed llvm and lldb TimeValues, and ported the remaining usages of raw timeout values I found to std::chrono (SB API excluded). If you find any that are left, let me know, and I can get to them as well.
pl On 12 October 2016 at 10:11, Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote: > 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
