Re: Print 64bit address from gdb

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>]

H . J . Lu writes:
 > On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 04:31:41PM -0700, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
 > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 04:11:53PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
 > > > I am looking at the sign extended vma bug. The gdb output doesn't make
 > > > any sesnes to me:
 > > > 
 > > > During symbol reading, inner block (0x802ac9d4-0xffffffff) not inside outer block (0x802aca18-0xffffffff).
 > > > 
 > > > There is
 > > > 
 > > > struct complaint innerblock_anon_complaint =
 > > > {"inner block (0x%lx-0x%lx) not inside outer block (0x%lx-0x%lx)", 0, 0};
 > > > 
 > > > I don't think it works with the sign extended vma from the 64bit bfd.
 > > > Am I right? Are we going to fix it? I guess we should pass
 > > > 
 > > > {"inner block (0x%llx-0x%llx) not inside outer block (0x%llx-0x%llx)", 0, 0};
 > > > 
 > > > if the address is long long.
 > > 
 > > Yes, that's a problem.  Perhaps you can use your conveniently introduced
 > > *printf_vma functions for this?
 > 
 > It should use 
 > 
 > {"inner block (%s-%s) not inside outer block (%s-%s)", 0, 0};
 > 
 > and use
 > 
 > sprintf_vma/bfd_sprintf_vma. bfd_sprintf_vma is better for user and
 > sprintf_vma may be better for developer. I prefer bfd_sprintf_vma.
 > 
 > 
 > H.J.


H.J. how do you get the complaints to show up?
The stop_whining variable would seem to stop them, unless you used the 
set complaints command.
Just curious.

I would prefer to use the paddr functions, from utils.c. All the
complaints that print addresses should be updated, then.....


Elena