On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Michael Spertus <m...@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 <dblai...@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@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@lists.llvm.org >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits