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/20161007/3d4f699d/attachment.html>
Speaking of LLD, the reason why we don't use is just because we don't need it. On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> 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? > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161006/f210218d/attachment.html>
Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian via llvm-dev
2016-Oct-07 06:37 UTC
[llvm-dev] Using std::chrono
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/e494e69b/attachment-0001.html>
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>