[llvm-dev] Using std::chrono

[Zachary Turner via llvm-dev]

VS2013 support is dropped in about 1 week from now :)

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:37 PM Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian <
Johannes.Sebastian.Mueller-Roemer at igd.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

> Visual Studio up to and including VS2013 implements
> std::chrono::high_resolution_clock in an absolutely unusable manner (it is
> a very low resolution clock…) [1]. Also, division is implemented
> incorrectly [2]. I have run into both issues in my private developments, so
> I would avoid them as long as VS2013 is supported by LLVM (I believe it
> still is?).
>
>
>
>     [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31643279
>
>     [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26372596
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *Zachary
> Turner via llvm-dev
> *Sent:* Friday, October 7, 2016 03:11
> *To:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* [llvm-dev] Using std::chrono
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> We're considering using std::chrono more heavily in lldb. However, A quick
> search of the llvm, clang, and lld codebases shos almost zero usage of
> chrono. I wanted to see if this was for technical reasons (eg some compiler
> doesn't support it well) or simply because nobody has needed it yet. If
> it's the former then I'd like to be aware of the issues so we don't fall
> into any traps.
>
> If it's the latter, then we're good to go. Would it be worth adding any
> chrono helper functions to llvm/Support? On the one hand, it seems
> generally useful. But on the other hand, if nobody's using it yet, maybe
> it's not generally useful enough.
>
> Also, are there any chrono experts around who would be willing to review
> some patches?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161007/8e53474f/attachment.html>