From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26651 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2012 18:31:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 26642 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2012 18:31:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,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; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:30:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAUIUsqs000393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:30:54 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAUIUqec031451 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:30:52 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Marcus Shawcroft Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] AArch64 GDB and GDBSERVER Port V2 References: <50AD0303.5030100@arm.com> <87mwy18kb2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <50B75C86.3080909@arm.com> <87ip8o7789.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <50B86D4D.2000102@arm.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <50B86D4D.2000102@arm.com> (Marcus Shawcroft's message of "Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:24:45 +0000") Message-ID: <87wqx30wpv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00951.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Marcus" == Marcus Shawcroft writes: Marcus> OK, The instance I noticed was in common: Marcus> ./common/buffer.c:152: sprintf (str, "%" PRIx64, Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't aware of it. Marcus> .. but I see no reason not to switch to CORE_ADDR and Marcus> core_addr_to_string_nz() for each of these PRIx64. I'll make this Marcus> change in the next spin of the patches. Thanks. Tom