From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25917 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2009 07:12:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 25904 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jan 2009 07:12:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:11:47 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF1E2A963E; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 0v8U61DLe0W9; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B9E2A963D; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:11:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B6559E7ACD; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:11:37 +0400 (RET) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Kai Tietz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [RFC] convert a host address to a string Message-ID: <20090110071137.GN24105@adacore.com> References: <20090109131227.GL24105@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-01/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 > I think it is a sub-optimal solution to have just support for Vista64, but > not for XP. To me, the question is not about whether to support XP64 or not. I agree it would be nice to support XP64 as well. It's about who has the time and energy to drive the discussion to find an accepted solution. I decided to drop XP64, because it's not in the list of things I'm interested in while I'm sensing that it's going to take a bit of effort to reach a consensus. You already made a very nice contribution in the coff/pe reader, why not send another patch to further improve host_address_to_string for XP64? > On a second thought, I remembered, that bfd does things right ;) There > is the macro sprintf_vma in bfd.h, which handles things pretty well > and can be used here in utils.c, too. The problem with that routine is that it is designed to print target addresses, not host addresses. -- Joel