[patch] '0x' prefix on objdump addresses

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On 10 Jan 2002, Graydon Hoare wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-01-10 at 16:38, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On 10 Jan 2002, Graydon Hoare wrote:
> > > The biggest problem I can forsee is the large-ish number of testsuites
> > > this would trivially invalidate. The whole gas suite, at least, would
> > > need adjusting. Any volunteers?
> >
> > Aren't you supposed to fix any breakages in the test-suite (gas
> > and ld, maybe elsewhere) when you change objdump output?
>
> yes, of course. I really just want to double-check with the wider
> objdump user/developer community to ensure the work is not the sort of
> thing someone is going to immediately undo, if I happen to do it; and
> perhaps raise anyone's antennae if they think their own testsuites,
> outside the typical toolchain suites, are going to break.

FWIW, I don't really disagree with the change, but I agree an
example would help.  Particularly, an example that shows where
no-0x actually leads to confusion might help convincing those
arguing against the patch.

brgds, H-P