[lldb-dev] fate of TimeValue

[Pavel Labath via lldb-dev]

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 <labath at 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 <gclayton at 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 at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7 October 2016 at 21:42, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 9:30 PM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at 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 at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>