Sorry, I've been mostly away from my systems recently.
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 13:28 +0200, Eddy Petrișor wrote: > Thanks for clarifying this. Could you please confirm if the general > direction of the the is OK in the latest patch I sent? I will take a look. > What it is in scope and what I would need help with is adding relative > time stamp support in the profiling info instead of absolute time > stamps. When analyzing the 'simple' output I realised the graphs > looked awful because there was such such a scale difference between > the time stamp and duration. > The absolute time stamp also doesn't fit well worth the scope of the > 'simple' output. Does it have to be relative to the start of the entire build (user's invocation of make)? I understand the interest in the amount of time a given job takes to run, but I guess I don't understand the need for a "start time offset" at all. Isn't it sufficient to record the start time of a job, then when it's complete show the elapsed time for that job? Or recipe? Or both? > I tried to pass down a reference time stamp through an environment > variable, but I am missing something from the processing since > submakes don't see the variable I defined. I'll take a look. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
