zturner accepted this revision.
zturner added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
If it's dead code, probably don't even need to ask.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25393
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
h
zturner added inline comments.
Comment at: include/lldb/Host/FileSystem.h:69-71
+ static std::chrono::time_point
+ GetModificationTime(const FileSpec &file_spec);
I wonder if it would be worth defining some typedefs in LLVM's `Chrono.h` that
Mehdi is adding to
zturner added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteClientBase.cpp:192
+packet_result = ReadPacket(
+response, std::chrono::duration_cast(
+ GetPacketTimeout())
`using namespace std` is generally
labath added inline comments.
Comment at: include/lldb/Host/FileSystem.h:69-71
+ static std::chrono::time_point
+ GetModificationTime(const FileSpec &file_spec);
zturner wrote:
> I wonder if it would be worth defining some typedefs in LLVM's `Chrono.h`
> that
labath added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteClientBase.cpp:192
+packet_result = ReadPacket(
+response, std::chrono::duration_cast(
+ GetPacketTimeout())
zturner wrote:
> `using namespace st
labath added inline comments.
Comment at: include/lldb/Host/TimeValue.h:37-38
explicit TimeValue(uint32_t seconds, uint64_t nanos = 0);
+ TimeValue(std::chrono::time_point
+point)
labath wrote:
> zturner wrote:
> > Is there any reason to expli
Yea let's just duration_cast before calling to_time_t
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 4:23 PM Pavel Labath wrote:
> labath added inline comments.
>
>
>
> Comment at: include/lldb/Host/TimeValue.h:37-38
>explicit TimeValue(uint32_t seconds, uint64_t nanos = 0);
> + TimeValue(std::chro
