From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30695 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2011 16:46:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 30512 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2011 16:46:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-qw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.216.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:46:26 +0000 Received: by qadc11 with SMTP id c11so2859031qad.0 for ; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.194.5 with SMTP id dw5mr7717744qab.16.1320425185152; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:46:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.194.5 with SMTP id dw5mr7717733qab.16.1320425184934; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:46:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.6.76 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:46:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83wrbgl0rz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20110920041137.A67D02461A0@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <83wrbgl0rz.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA, doc RFA] Include wallclock time in "maint time" output. From: Doug Evans To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00118.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 16:17:08 -0700 >> From: Doug Evans >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> >> >> The part about time not being printed for commands that run the target >> >> is not true. >> > >> > The CPU time still accounts for GDB only, right? =A0It sounds like we >> > interpret this sentence differently, so perhaps it should be reworded >> > rather than being deleted. >> >> You'll need to tell me how you interpret it. > > The text of the patch you attached is fine with me, but I would > suggest to use "@sc{cpu}" instead of just "cpu", I think the former > looks better in print. Ah, righto. That reminded me that gdb.texinfo uses CPU (all caps) througho= ut, so that's what I checked in.