This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA, doc RFA] Include wallclock time in "maint time" output.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Eli Zaretskii <> wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:08:52 -0700
>> From: Doug Evans <>
>> Cc:
>> > Actually, it would be much more useful to display time it took the
>> > inferior between two points where GDB gets control. ?Are you trying to
>> > approximate that missing feature, or is there some other use case
>> > where wallclock time would be useful?
>> It's not always the case that the inferior is running when wanting to
>> see wallclock time. ?E.g., remote protocol operations, excessive nfs
>> latency, etc.
>> [For reference sake, MI already supports this feature for monitoring
>> slow operations.]
> It sounds like it would be a good idea to mention these use cases in
> the manual.
>> It's not possible to implement gettimeofday on windows with better
>> accuracy?
> It is easy to do that with 10ms resolution, but not below that. ?Below
> that, AFAIK only interval measurements are "easy" on Windows.
>> gettimeofday is pretty simple and standard,
>> inventing something new has its own disadvantages.
> I disagree, but I can live with that.
>> >> +If set to a nonzero value, @value{GDBN} will display how much time it
>> >> ?took to execute each command, following the command's own output.
>> >> -The time is not printed for the commands that run the target, since
>> >> -there's no mechanism currently to compute how much time was spend
>> >> -by @value{GDBN} and how much time was spend by the program been debugged.
>> >> -it's not possibly currently
>> >
>> > I'm not sure we should remove that remark, because what it says is
>> > still true, even after your changes.
>> 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.
Note that my docs do say that the time printed does not include
inferior time.

>> Does the part about there being no mechanism to compute how much time
>> was spent by the inferior really add anything of value?
> It explains the meaning of the times we print, IMO. ?If someone saw
> the need to tell that at some point, I tend to honor that.


2011-11-03  Doug Evans  <>

        * utils.c: #include "timeval-utils.h".
        (cmd_stats): Rename start_time to start_cpu_time.
        New member start_wall_time.
        (report_command_stats): Report wall time.
        (make_command_stats_cleanup): Record start wall time.

        * gdb.texinfo (Maintenance Commands): Update docs of "maint time".

Attachment: gdb-111103-wallclock-time-2.patch.txt
Description: Text document

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]