From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27447 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2002 22:56:37 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 2 Jan 2002 22:56:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 19011 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2002 22:56:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 16392 Received: (qmail 18996 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2002 22:56:30 -0000 To: raul@viadomus.com, zefram@fysh.org Subject: Re: Maybe a bug? Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Message-Id: Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 00:08:52 +0100 From: Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado Reply-To: Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado Sender: Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado X-Mailer: DervishD TWiSTiNG Mailer Hi again, Zefram :) >>kernel times are not 0. The elapsed time should be, at least, the sum >>of user and kernel time, shouldn't it?. >Strictly speaking no; on a multi-processor system Yes, I forgot O:))) I'm not very accostumed to SMP boxes ;) >>It should return 0, not 18887% as it uses. >Obviously the elapsed time is not zero in this case, it's just too >small to show as non-zero in the output format we use. Yes, it's true. But the percentage is bad anyway :?? >-- it can be correct to show more than 100% CPU usage (if the program >averaged using more than one CPU at a time). Yes again... Well, anyway I use 'GNU time' most of the time when doing statistics for my programs, and then the number matters. I'll use the builtin time for general use (sometimes I want to profile shell functions, and the builtin time is better for that). Thanks a lot for your help. I'm really falling in love with zsh every second I use it :))) Far better than Bash, IMHO. Without the ugly readline, the amazing completion system, etc... I'm afraid I won't be able to learn all its capabilities in this life ;)) Raúl