You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Our code base currently supports both boost::posix_time and boost::chrono, forwarding the later to the former. We should remove support for boost::posix_time and build on top of boost::chrono (and some day std::chrono).
Some thoughts on the subject:
Examples and unit tests should be updated to use the chrono interfaces.
All functionality should be implemented on top of chrono::steady_clock, since operations should not be affected by system clock changes.
Instead of having multiple implementations, there should be a single implementation in terms of chrono::steady_clock::time_point. The interface should support arbitrary durations and time-points (including our take on executors).
Timed operations shall not do any non-trivial operation (holding a lock, allocating memory, etc) when the given timeout has already expired.
Add support for std::chrono, forwarding/converting to boost::chrono.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Our code base currently supports both
boost::posix_time
andboost::chrono
, forwarding the later to the former. We should remove support forboost::posix_time
and build on top ofboost::chrono
(and some daystd::chrono
).Some thoughts on the subject:
chrono
interfaces.chrono::steady_clock
, since operations should not be affected by system clock changes.chrono::steady_clock::time_point
. The interface should support arbitrary durations and time-points (including our take onexecutors
).std::chrono
, forwarding/converting toboost::chrono
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: