From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4636 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2005 02:07:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 4625 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Nov 2005 02:07:49 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 02:07:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jAJ27ld5014149; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:07:47 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jAJ27lV32461; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:07:47 -0500 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jAJ27jPe008409; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:07:45 -0500 Message-ID: <437E88F0.3070206@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 02:07:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird (X11/20050322) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: tracepoint.c memory range requests References: <8f2776cb0511181737w1f99beb0rec6d4cd40dc7c131@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0511181737w1f99beb0rec6d4cd40dc7c131@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00416.txt.bz2 Jim Blandy wrote: > Looking at the code in tracepoint.c:stringify_collection_list, it > seems that memory ranges with absolute addresses end up having the > form MFFFFFFFF,,. This is because "%X" always treats its > argument as unsigned. So the number of F's depends on sizeof > (unsigned int). > > I know that we spent some effort keeping the packets small. Since > there are, as far as we know, no stubs that support tracepoints in > active use, may I change that to send '-' instead of the F's? Actually, there may be such a stub -- there's been at least one guy posting questions about target tracepoint implementation this year. Is the purpose just to make the packet smaller? The intent was for that number to be the value negative one, so changing it to "M-1,," wouldn't be entirely unreasonable. The comments in gdb refer to it as "-1", (when they don't mistakenly refer to it as "0").