[PATCH] LLD: Implement our own future and use that for FileArchive::preload().

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at gmail.com
Mon Mar 2 20:08:07 PST 2015

Is there a reason not to implement essentially the exact future/promise API from the standard in the 'llvm' namespace? We do this in ADT or Support for a lot of things that we'd like from the standard library but can't rely on (yet).

Maybe it makes more sense to start smaller here, but then I wonder if it would be useful to make the APIs at least be a subset to ease migration in the future? (ba-dum!)

Not a big deal either way, just a thought.



More information about the llvm-commits mailing list