On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > On 12-08-14 16:39 , Steven Bosscher wrote: > >> I seriously doubt that ;-) >> >> Anyway, it's not so simple, this 80-len(everything else). I was >> looking for a solution like that but it can't be done: there is no >> "everything else". It depends on the configuration -- more >> specifically on HAVE_USER_TIME, HAVE_SYS_TIME, and HAVE_WALL_TIME. The >> format of these three is: >> "%7.2f (%2.0f%%) usr" "%7.2f (%2.0f%%) sys" "%7.2f (%2.0f%%) wall" > > > Sorry, I didn't mean to have it computed automatically. Apologies for the > confusion. I really wanted to know if we couldn't do something like 40 or > so. > > Chatting with Lawrence offline, he says that we may be able to do a static > check instead of dynamic. But, again, this can be a follow-up patch.
I think we could go for truncation by default, -ftime-report-w for non-truncated but possibly very long lines. I agree about wrapping - that would be bad. Richard. > >> So I'd really like to go with the patch as-is, it's certainly not >> making things any worse than they already are for those who work on >> good old 80col windows. > > > Absolutely. The patch is fine. > > > Diego.
