[lldb-dev] fate of TimeValue

[Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev]

> 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”. 

Thanks,

— 
Mehdi


> In any case, I've put the more
> interesting patches I have in my stack up for review, so you have a
> better idea of what I have in mind. and then we can decide what is the
> fate of the utility functions there.
> cheers,
> pl
> 
> On 6 October 2016 at 18:01, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote:
>> I see one usage of of chrono in the Fuzzer, and that's about it.
>> 
>> On 6 October 2016 at 17:46, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'd love to move over to chrono. For Utility functions such as those you
>>> propose probably we should consider whether they should go into llvm. Does
>>> llvm currently use anything from chrono or have any chrono support functions
>>> yet?
>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:39 PM Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
>>> <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello all,
>>>> 
>>>> in line with the "deinventing the wheel" movement, I'd like to remove the
>>>> TimeValue class from LLDB. I've done some research on a flight this week,
>>>> and as far as I can tell all functionality can be easily replaced with
>>>> appropriate usage of std::chrono::duration and time_point.
>>>> 
>>>> The only parts that are missing are the ability to convert to/from legacy
>>>> C types (struct timevalue, struct timespec), which can be replaced by
>>>> utility functions.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, I've found one use case particularly cumbersome to write in the c++
>>>> way: writing out a duration as a fractional number of units (e.g.
>>>> milliseconds). So, I'd propose adding the following utility function as well
>>>> (unless someone knows a cleaner way to write this):
>>>> 
>>>> template<typename DurOut, typename DurIn>
>>>> double float_duration(DurIn dur) {
>>>>  return std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::duration<double,
>>>> DurOut::period>>(dur).count();
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> Then, you can write float_duration<milliseconds>(dur) to get the duration
>>>> as a fractional number of milliseconds (used in printing time deltas in a
>>>> human readable fashion).
>>>> 
>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>> 
>>>> pl
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> lldb-dev mailing list
>>>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev