Re: Optimized gcc 4.3.0 build on Windows returns 0 secs for all time values of system-process-attributes

[Chetan Pandya]

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 <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Optimized gcc 4.3.0 build on Windows returns 0 secs for all time 
> values of system-process-attributes
> To: "dhruva" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Friday, January 2, 2009, 2:33 PM
> > Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:29:59 +0530
> > From: dhruva <address@hidden>
> > Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden,
> address@hidden
> > 
> > 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.