On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 13:16:54 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> unsigned millisecs[] = { 2, 20, 200, 1000 };
>> get_time_stamp(millisecs[i], buf, sizeof(buf));
>>
>> gets:
>>
>> timestamp 06.11.2020 06:56:08.002 EST
>> timestamp 06.11.2020 06:56:08.020 EST
>> timestamp 06.11.2020 06:56:08.200 EST
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:58:04 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> The concern is when it is less than 100ms.
>
> unsigned millisecs[] = { 2, 20, 200, 1000 };
> get_time_stamp(millisecs[i], buf, sizeof(buf));
>
> gets:
>
> timestamp 06.11.2020 06:56:08.002 EST
> timestamp 06.11.2020 06:56:08.020
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 01:01:40 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> char tmp[10 + 1];
>> snprintf(tmp, sizeof(tmp), "%.3d", millisecs);
>> snprintf(tbuf, ltbuf, "%s.%s %s", timestamp_date_time, tmp,
>> timestamp_timezone);
>> This also gets the same thing.
>
> The concern is when it is less than
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:58:01 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> timestamp 05.11.2020 19:54:13.100 EST
>>
>> This is what I get (in a small test program) for 100 ms with the existing
>> code. Is this not right?
>
> char tmp[10 + 1];
> snprintf(tmp, sizeof(tmp), "%.3d", millisecs);
>
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:55:22 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Right, `snprintf(tmp, sizeof(tmp), "%d", millisecs);` needs to be
>> `snprintf(tmp, sizeof(tmp), "%.3d", millisecs);` to pad it out correctly.
>
> timestamp 05.11.2020 19:54:13.100 EST
>
> This is what I get (in a small test program)
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 22:22:24 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/log_messages.c line 82:
>>
>>> 80: "%Z", localtime());
>>> 81: // Truncate milliseconds in buffer large enough to hold the
>>> 82: // value which is always < 1000
>>
>> I
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 22:11:44 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Coleen Phillimore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Use Thomas's fix instead.
>
> src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/log_messages.c line 82:
>
>> 80:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 20:33:08 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Apply patch suggested by @cl4es in the bug report. Passes
>> linux-x86-open,linux-x64-open,linux-s390x-open,linux-arm32-debug,linux-ppc64le-debug
>> builds with this patch, and tier1.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Coleen
>
> Coleen Phillimore
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 20:30:05 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Apply patch suggested by @cl4es in the bug report. Passes
>> linux-x86-open,linux-x64-open,linux-s390x-open,linux-arm32-debug,linux-ppc64le-debug
>> builds with this patch, and tier1.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Coleen
>
> Coleen Phillimore
> Apply patch suggested by @cl4es in the bug report. Passes
> linux-x86-open,linux-x64-open,linux-s390x-open,linux-arm32-debug,linux-ppc64le-debug
> builds with this patch, and tier1.
>
> thanks,
> Coleen
Coleen Phillimore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
additional commit
10 matches
Mail list logo