[PATCH] LLD: Implement our own future and use that for FileArchive::preload().
chandlerc at google.com
Mon Mar 2 20:22:37 PST 2015
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
> The reason why I didn't implement complete future and promise as specified
> in C++11 is because the amount of effort that would require. I implemented
> a future just in 30 lines here. On the other hand a complete implementation
> probably require 200+ lines. This is the only place we use future, so I
> thought that it just doesn't pay.
> If we are going to use future in many places in LLVM projects, it worth
> implementing a "real" one. But I imagine it's unlikely -- the linker is
> probably exceptional in the sense that it gains a lot from multi-threading.
> If we are going to see more uses of future in LLVM, maybe we should think
> about that.
I think we might long term see more. But I agree it is a lot of work,
that's why I wondered about keeping the minimal implementation, but using
the standard API. But maybe that API just isn't easy to implement without
all the complexity.
Anyways, don't hold up this review on account of my curiosity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-commits