From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15919 invoked by alias); 7 May 2002 14:56:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15851 invoked from network); 7 May 2002 14:56:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 May 2002 14:56:21 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1756Ni-0004dJ-00; Tue, 07 May 2002 10:55:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 07:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michal Ludvig Cc: Brian Taylor , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: [RFC] Re: Proposed fix to gdb for printing 64-bit addresses Message-ID: <20020507145558.GB17670@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michal Ludvig , Brian Taylor , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney References: <3CCD8E01.2020500@model.com> <3CD7D446.5020800@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CD7D446.5020800@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 03:19:02PM +0200, Michal Ludvig wrote: > Hi, > unfortunately this produces quite ugly output on x86-64 where the > debugged code usually lives on low addresses and thus the PC is > prepended with a long string of zeros. Now: > #0 0x00000000004000d3 in cpyptrs () at dwarf.c:11 > #1 0x00000000004000f8 in func () at dwarf.c:19 > > I propose to change the format string from "016l" to just "l" so that > only valid digits will be printed: > #0 0x4000d3 in cpyptrs () at dwarf.c:11 > #1 0x4000f8 in func () at dwarf.c:19 > > Than there is no need for different handling of 32/64b archs. > > Comments? I'd rather not do that, actually; I find it very confusing when a seven-digit hex number is printed (I assume it is an eight-digit one). It might be appropriate to print just eight digits of low 64-bit addresses... I don't feel too strongly about this issue, though. Anyone else have an opinion? -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer