From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3988 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2010 19:25:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 3978 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2010 19:25:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:25:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2IJPfch023787 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:25:41 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2IJPb8k021085 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:25:39 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2IJPbIB025550; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:25:37 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o2IJPauZ025543; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:25:36 +0100 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:25:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: Mark Kettenis , pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Why does ui_out_field_core_addr pad with leading zeroes? Message-ID: <20100318192535.GA25322@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20100318173015.6765784413@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <201003181747.29518.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201003181855.o2IIthRb027235@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00686.txt.bz2 On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:19:11 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: > Having stared at both alignments, I don't see aligning the address to > the right as being easier to read than aligning them to the left, and > even less so. > > Right Aligned > > (gdb) i b > Num Type Disp Enb Address What > 2 breakpoint keep y 0x40049c in main at hello.c:6 > 3 breakpoint keep y 0x7ffff7acbe40 > (gdb) > > Left Aligned > > (gdb) i b > Num Type Disp Enb Address What > 2 breakpoint keep y 0x40049c in main at hello.c:6 > 3 breakpoint keep y 0x7ffff7acbe40 > (gdb) I am definitely for the "Right Aligned" one and against the "Left Aligned" one. While analyzing various crash dumps one looks for the same last three digits (ignoring PIC/PIE different PAGE_SIZE-aligned placement). Also sometimes sorting addresses from various sources by hand to find out the memory layout and having to additionally re-align even the GDB dump itself is not helpful. Thanks, Jan