From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-54312-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 1689 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2008 21:58:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 1679 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Feb 2008 21:58:12 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:57:47 +0000
Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8306698140; 	Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:57:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) 	by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73079811F; 	Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:57:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) 	(envelope-from <drow@caradoc.them.org>) 	id 1JUUHW-0006yF-25; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:57:42 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:07:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [rfa/rfc] Debug output timestamps
Message-ID: <20080227215742.GD14556@caradoc.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, brobecker@adacore.com, 	gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <20070413133209.GA11212@caradoc.them.org> <ud528jeqe.fsf@gnu.org> <20070415080556.GA29271@adacore.com> <20080227205144.GB14556@caradoc.them.org> <uejayks17.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <uejayks17.fsf@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00458.txt.bz2

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:28:52PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> This is okay, but wouldn't it be better to also show hours and
> minutes?  That's what I'd expect when I read the word ``timestamp'' in
> the docs.

Maybe - I only use it to calculate elapsed time, so seconds were most
convenient.  It probably depends on the individual reading
(e.g. strace has options to do it both ways).

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery