From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18781 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2010 19:51:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 18772 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2010 19:51:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:51:10 +0000 Received: (qmail 10213 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2010 19:51:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 Mar 2010 19:51:08 -0000 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Doug Evans Cc: Jan Kratochvil , 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: <20100318195050.GA11586@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Evans , Jan Kratochvil , Mark Kettenis , pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20100318173015.6765784413@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <201003181747.29518.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201003181855.o2IIthRb027235@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20100318192535.GA25322@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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/msg00689.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:38:09PM -0700, Doug Evans wrote: > 2010-03-18 Doug Evans > > * ui-out.c (ui_out_field_core_addr): Don't pad address with leading > zeroes. > * breakpoint.c (breakpoint_1): Right align breakpoint addresses. Does this right align the header, or just the contents? I may be alone, and at risk of bikeshedding, but I think this looks weird: Num Address 1 0x4414 2 0x1231230000 I'm more a fan of: Num Address 1 0x4414 2 0x1231230000 [They both look a bit weird to me though. My ideal UI for this stuff resizes based on contents...] -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery