[PATCH] D21256: Improved Visual Studio 2015 visualization of SmallVectorImpl

[Michael Spertus via cfe-commits]

Hi David,
IIUC Eric Feiveson drives Visual Studio visualizers. I'll email him (and
will also demo to STL in Oulu).

Best,
Mike

On Monday, June 13, 2016, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Michael Spertus <mike at spertus.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mike at spertus.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>> While I understand the initial reasoning. I have found that this is like
>> a hundred times better for working on Clang in practice and can't imagine
>> working without it. The point is that many Clang data structures contain
>> SmallVectors and having to do zero expansion clicks instead of multiple
>> each time you take a step through the code is really helpful. If you want
>> me to back it out and rereview we can, but I'd encourage you to try it out
>> first.
>>
>
> Oh, I don't use MSVC at all, so it's totally up to you, I'd just be
> curious if the visualizers for SmallVector were different for those of
> std::vector. Not that the authors of the inbuilt visualizers in MSVC have a
> monopoly on correct/good design here.
>
> Might be worth roping STL (Stephan) into the thread to discuss MSVC
> visualizers of the STL - and/or filing a bug, if we think there are better
> ways to visualize containers than those provided by MSVC.
>
>
>>
>> To ask more about the aside, I'm sorry if I violated community norms. Let
>> me tell you my reasoning, and you can clarify how I should handle in the
>> future: Aaron approved me to do post-commit reviews on natvis changes,
>> which I have done frequently. For this change, I wasn't putting it into
>> phabricator because I thought pre-commit approval is required but more as a
>> heads up. Should I change that to be if I don't feel comfortable submitting
>> without phabricator, then do the full review process?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:16 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dblaikie at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> As for the original change proposed: My guiding principle would be "do
>>> whatever std::vector does". (& that's what I did when implementing GDB
>>> pretty printers for SmallVector/SmallString/ArrayRef, etc... )
>>>
>>> An aside: We generally don't do time limited reviews like this. Either
>>> something needs review because you're not sure about it, or it doesn't. It
>>> sounds like the feedback you were looking for probably would've been fine a
>>> post-commit review feedback just as easily & perhaps might've been a better
>>> option. (while in this case it was fine - it's sort of a community
>>> habit/standards thing - we don't want to create the idea that lack of
>>> feedback is consent/approval in the review process)
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Mike Spertus via cfe-commits <
>>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org');>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> mspertus closed this revision.
>>>> mspertus added a comment.
>>>>
>>>> revision 272525
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D21256
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org');>
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20160613/bc554c98/attachment.html>