This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the elfutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch] readelf.c: Use real output width [Re: [patch] Implement reglocs for s390/s390x]

> Yes, bad will happen:
>     info.si_signo: 6, info.si_code: 0, info.si_errno: 0, cursig: 6
> ->
>     info.si_signo: 6, info.si_code: 0
>     info.si_errno: 0, cursig: 6
> etc., everything gets too narrow.
> Because max_width is very exaggerated there while the values here like "0" or
> "6" are in reality much shorter.

Ah, right.  We don't wrap based on the actual output, but based on an
expectation of the potential size of each field.  I think that's right
so that each field appears on the same line regardless of the values.

I don't seem to be understanding your code.  The comment still says that
it's avoiding having the wrapping depend on the particular values.  But I
can't see in the code what does that.  print_core_item itself clearly now
depends on the size of the formatted string for each value.  The comment
says, "the FORMAT strings typically already contain their maximum width."
But I don't see how that's so.  What am I missing?

> I find the output with applied patch fine, do you see a problem there?

I prefer the old output: sigpend and sighold on separate lines,
sid on the same like with *id, pgrp.

I wonder what would happen if we just set the format-max values for the
decimal formats smaller, so they're not really the maximum width but
something more like the "common" width.

> +  int i = vasprintf (&out, format, ap);
> +  assert (i >= 0);

assert is questionable for what could be an ENOMEM failure.

> +  va_end (ap);
> +
> +  size_t n = name_width + sizeof ": " - 1 + strlen (out);

i == strlen (out) unless the format delivered a '\0'.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]