(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 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have removed llvm and lldb TimeValues, and ported the remaining
> usages of raw timeout value
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 wrote:
> My current plan is to
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 C
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 lld
> On Oct 7, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Pavel Labath wrote:
>
> On 7 October 2016 at 21:42, Mehdi Amini wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 9:30 PM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The llvm-dev thread seems to have fizzed out - I would assume they are
>>> not interested in std::chrono.
>>
On 7 October 2016 at 21:42, Mehdi Amini wrote:
>
>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 9:30 PM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
>> 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 (exce
> On Oct 7, 2016, at 9:30 PM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
> 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
The llvm-dev thread seems to have fizzed out - I would assume they are
not interested in std::chrono. In any case, I've put the more
interesting patches I have in my stack up for review, so you have a
better idea of what I have in mind. and then we can decide what is the
fate of the utility functio
I see one usage of of chrono in the Fuzzer, and that's about it.
On 6 October 2016 at 17:46, Zachary Turner wrote:
> I'd love to move over to chrono. For Utility functions such as those you
> propose probably we should consider whether they should go into llvm. Does
> llvm currently use anything
I'd love to move over to chrono. For Utility functions such as those you
propose probably we should consider whether they should go into llvm. Does
llvm currently use anything from chrono or have any chrono support
functions yet?
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:39 PM Pavel Labath via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@l
Hello all,
in line with the "deinventing the wheel" movement, I'd like to remove the
TimeValue class from LLDB. I've done some research on a flight this week,
and as far as I can tell all functionality can be easily replaced with
appropriate usage of std::chrono::duration and time_point.
The only
11 matches
Mail list logo
