From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7635 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2010 17:52:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 7626 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2010 17:52:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 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; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:52:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB912BAAE1; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:52:26 -0400 (EDT) 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 IV+tXi4iu+bv; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D8622BAADF; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4BB70F5917; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:52:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Why does ui_out_field_core_addr pad with leading zeroes? Message-ID: <20100318175224.GA2844@adacore.com> References: <20100318173015.6765784413@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100318173015.6765784413@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00673.txt.bz2 > I couldn't find an explanation of *why* ui_out_field_core_addr pads > the address with leading zeroes. > > Does anyone know? I don't (it was probably even before my time). But this raised an interesting question: Initially, I thought that the current behavior is much nicer. But then I looked at both outputs again, and asked myself: which one is easier/faster to read? FWIW, I'm leaning towards your suggestion... -- Joel