On Thu, 2024-10-03 at 11:15 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The only consumer I know of for the JSON time report data is in the
> > integration tests I wrote for -fanalyzer, which assumes that all
> > fields
> > are present when printing, and then goes on to use the "user" times
> > for
> > summarizin
> The only consumer I know of for the JSON time report data is in the
> integration tests I wrote for -fanalyzer, which assumes that all fields
> are present when printing, and then goes on to use the "user" times for
> summarizing; see this commit FWIW:
> https://github.com/davidmalcolm/gcc-analyz
On Thu, 2024-10-03 at 00:37 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Note that if the user requests SARIF output e.g. with
> > -fdiagnostics-format=sarif-stderr
> > then any timevar data from -ftime-report is written in JSON form as
> > part of the SARIF, rather than in text form to stderr (see
> > 75d623946
> Note that if the user requests SARIF output e.g. with
> -fdiagnostics-format=sarif-stderr
> then any timevar data from -ftime-report is written in JSON form as
> part of the SARIF, rather than in text form to stderr (see
> 75d623946d4b6ea80a777b789b116d4b4a2298dc).
>
> I see that the proposed
On Wed, 2024-10-02 at 14:14 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> Time vars normally use times(2) to get the user/sys/wall time, which
> is always a
> system call. I don't think the system time is very useful because
> most overhead
> is in user time. If we only use the wall (or monoton
