From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: GDB <gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com>
Subject: Re: Print 64bit address from gdb
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:41:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010810094110.B8606@lucon.org>
References: <20010809161153.A25494@lucon.org> <20010809163140.A6995@nevyn.them.org>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00108.html

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.