Fix a truly odd namespace qualifier that was flat out wrong in the
process. The fully qualified namespace would have been
llvm::sys::TimeValue, llvm::TimeValue makes no sense.
llvm-svn: 171292
The coding style used here is not LLVM's style because this is modeled
after a Boost interface and thus done in the style of a candidate C++
standard library interface. I'll probably end up proposing it as
a standard C++ library if it proves to be reasonably portable and
useful.
This is just the most basic parts of the interface -- getting the
process ID out of it. However, it helps sketch out some of the boiler
plate such as the base class, derived class, shared code, and static
factory function. It also introduces a unittest so that I can
incrementally ensure this stuff works.
However, I've not even compiled this code for Windows yet. I'll try to
fix any Windows fallout from the bots, and if I can't fix it I'll revert
and get someone on Windows to help out. There isn't a lot more that is
mandatory, so soon I'll switch to just stubbing out the Windows side and
get Michael Spencer to help with implementation as he can test it
directly.
llvm-svn: 171289
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
or Clang is using this, and it would be hard to use it correctly given
the thread hostility of the function. Also, it never checked the return
which is rather dangerous with chdir. If someone was in fact using this,
please let me know, as well as what the usecase actually is so that
I can add it back and make it more correct and secure to use. (That
said, it's never going to be "safe" per-se, but we could at least
document the risks...)
llvm-svn: 148211
Chandler Carruth