This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA, doc RFA] Include wallclock time in "maint time" output.
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:46:24 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFA, doc RFA] Include wallclock time in "maint time" output.
- References: <20110920041137.A67D02461A0@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <E1R5svz-00078r-L3@fencepost.gnu.org> <CADPb22R9ocuaKYqvABFapetE-MhhGLWLZmmH-ffgQ8WXZipFDQ@mail.gmail.com> <E1R5uSD-0003ho-IM@fencepost.gnu.org> <CADPb22QOYBHK03zWMgM5DSVqNv3jgQ_dgDYmk1vB5W8FOmcaUQ@mail.gmail.com> <83wrbgl0rz.fsf@gnu.org>
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 16:17:08 -0700
>> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
>> 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? ?It 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) throughout,
so that's what I checked in.