From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16379 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2007 18:44:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 16371 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2007 18:44:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:44:53 +0100 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-97-117.inter.net.il [80.230.97.117]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id HPD85405 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:44:50 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:45:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20070413133209.GA11212@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:32:09 -0400) Subject: Re: [rfa/rfc] Debug output timestamps Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20070413133209.GA11212@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2007-04/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:32:09 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Does anyone else think this would be useful? I was trying to figure > out how long some operations took during single stepping, in a > relatively unintrusive way. It's not very accurate, but it was still > handy. Sounds like a good idea to me. The doco patch is okay, if we decide to commit this.