This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 2016-11-22 21:17, Pedro Alves wrote:
I kept them (from v1) for type-safety: it makes it impossible to swap the arguments to this new now() method by mistake, or compare old system time with new user time by mistake. E.g.: /usr/include/c++/5.3.1/chrono:650:7: note: candidate: template<class _Clock, class _Dur1, class _Dur2> constexpr typename std::common_type<_Duration1, _Duration2>::type std::chrono::operator-(const std::chrono::time_point<_Clock, _Duration1>&, const std::chrono::time_point<_Clock, _Duration2>&) operator-(const time_point<_Clock, _Dur1>& __lhs, ^ /usr/include/c++/5.3.1/chrono:650:7: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed: src/gdb/mi/mi-main.c:2493:48: note: deduced conflicting types for parameter ‘_Clock’ (‘system_cpu_time_clock’ and ‘user_cpu_time_clock’) duration<double> utime = end->stime - start->utime; ^ Would you still prefer I remove those?
That sounds useful, I'm convinced.
Unrelated: for future work, it looks like an std::priority_queue would be a nice match for timer_list.Maybe, but we'd need to inherit from it in order to be able to delete timers that are not at the top of the heap. A set or multiset would be other options.
You're right: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19467485/c-priority-queue-removing-element-not-at-topPerhaps that's a bit too much for the amount of timers we usually have though...
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |