This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PING (docs)] Re: [PATCH] [1/2] Add new 'z' format for print command
- From: "Andrew Burgess" <aburgess at broadcom dot com>
- To: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:08:22 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PING (docs)] Re: [PATCH] [1/2] Add new 'z' format for print command
- References: <51DAF728 dot 4040309 at broadcom dot com> <51EFA750 dot 2070707 at broadcom dot com> <83k3kgvxf2 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <51EFEFB1 dot 4070408 at broadcom dot com> <83bo5rx59d dot fsf at gnu dot org>
On 24/07/2013 6:00 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:16:01 +0100
>> From: "Andrew Burgess" <aburgess@broadcom.com>
>> cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>>
>> On 24/07/2013 3:34 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>
>>> More importantly, I have a difficulty understanding what does
>>> "hexadecimal zero padded to the size ..." mean. More accurately, if
>>> my interpretation of what you say (that 'z' produces "00"s for
>>> non-existing data, then why does this "padding" make sense, when we
>>> are targeting a human consumer?
>>
>> I'm not sure I agree with the "non-existing data" part of your
>> statement, for example a 4-byte register containing the value 1 (one)
>> when printed with /x would print 0x1, with /z it would print 0x00000001,
>> surely the leading 0s do exist, we just normally don't print them.
>
> Then please say "zero padded on the left". I thought you were talking
> about padding at the right. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
OK. I'll re-word that tomorrow, do you want to see a revised patch
before I commit?
Thanks for your time,
Andrew