[lldb-dev] fate of TimeValue

[Pavel Labath via lldb-dev]

(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 <labath at 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 <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
>>>