(Or if you see any other code that looks like it's work-in-progress, and it's timeout related. I don't want to leave stuff half-finished.)
On 6 December 2016 at 16:29, Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote: > 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
