From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chetan Pandya Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Optimized gcc 4.3.0 build on Windows returns 0 secs for all time values of system-process-attributes Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:44:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <380213.50945.qm@web83203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: Reply-To: pandyacus@sbcglobal.net NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1230918306 4541 80.91.229.12 (2 Jan 2009 17:45:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, jasonr@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: dhruva , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 02 18:46:14 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LIo67-0003di-TQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:46:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46658 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LIo4s-0006eK-W4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:44:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LIo4o-0006ck-Ir for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:44:50 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LIo4o-0006cC-4M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:44:50 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46207 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LIo4n-0006bs-S2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:44:49 -0500 Original-Received: from web83203.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([216.252.101.47]:46051) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LIo4n-0003Mn-DE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:44:49 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 55763 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Jan 2009 17:44:45 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=LFa2DhztijFAoe3NxWHK5VYeX1ST8dC6lUwl9qyfBiFEDKSsE6h9ullJFLpCwwAW2Gp7IN7o0mFOsKhfEOecBsPuL1XN679xtZ3Qa3UYomJrPWNL/rs82d6sYw4hxgxymv6KXsL0Mi7xxV/vsJwrFvjVVNXdif+O/MWQIw6Nj1Y=; X-YMail-OSG: zXoRtG4VM1kv9QlAzo2KOHcyFKP1nlmikj8H_tnkzDrdBzRDjLp7AojMmo1DKnWOWLtHHA0G89SKHI3_MnzR8gBKokng4xj_uFlCgsDrPMPeKvohK8uqHn_kyLxyTH96YlSBCzZhi8Y6DwIRNbLL7Y1DN_lH57vU5yEhOXltX13bUGcnH9CtzzbCNi7Nc63qZblTj7FYjY.r1Ds- Original-Received: from [75.36.180.230] by web83203.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:44:45 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.218.2 In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 6.x (1) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:107532 Archived-At: I build with gcc version 3.4.5 so I don't know if there are other compiler differences, but I found that changing the format to (format-time-string "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M" start) in proced.el:proced-format-start made it better. I still have a number of questions about proced and related changes, but I haven't looked at it carefully yet. Chetan --- On Fri, 1/2/09, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > From: Eli Zaretskii > Subject: Re: Optimized gcc 4.3.0 build on Windows returns 0 secs for all time values of system-process-attributes > To: "dhruva" > Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, jasonr@gnu.org > Date: Friday, January 2, 2009, 2:33 PM > > Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:29:59 +0530 > > From: dhruva > > Cc: jasonr@gnu.org, lekktu@gmail.com, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > > I notice process started in 2008 have the year and 00:00 > > in the start time. Maybe, it is a separate issue. > > Ex: > > dhruva 1400 0.0 1.1 10:21 00:00 emacs.exe > > dhruva 2476 0.0 0.1 10:20 00:00 cmd.exe > > dhruva 2340 0.0 2.7 08:50 00:00 opera.exe > > dhruva 4252 0.0 1.4 2008 00:01 procexp.exe > > dhruva 2956 0.0 0.6 2008 00:00 BTSTAC~1.EXE > > dhruva 1912 0.0 0.2 2008 00:00 DLG.exe > > If you mean the column after START, the one whose header is TIME, then > that's not the start time, it's the sum of UTIME and STIME. I think > these processes simply used up less than 1 sec of utime+stime > combined. I see such processes as well, but others, which started in > 2008, have non-zero TIME. Here's a couple of examples > from my system: > > USER GROUP PID START TIME UTIME STIME ETIME COMMAND > SYSTEM SYSTEM 392 2008 25:03 19:35 05:27 2-10:08:41 avgrsx.exe > SYSTEM SYSTEM 8049 2008 01:46 00:12 01:34 2-10:09:06 services.exe > SYSTEM SYSTEM 8162 2008 00:12 00:03 00:09 2-10:09:06 lsass.exe > > > Anyway, I will continue to explore this to the best of my abilities. > > Thank you.