The "debug dump" I provided:
ebx: 21687<11:%11d> ecx: 21689<11:%11d> edx:
esi: 0<11:%11d> edi: -143585292<11:%11d> ebp:
eax: 0<11:%11d> eip: 0xf774d430<11: 0x%.8x> eflags:
shows both FORMAT_MAX and FORMAT used for each field:
printf ("<%zu:%s>", format_max, format);
One can see FORMAT "%11d" (or "0x %.8x") is enough to keep the output
without the need for additional FORMAT_MAX.
I didn't see where that "11" was, but now I see you have it for the
register formats but not the item formats. That's what confused me.
In the case of si_signo/si_code:
info.si_signo: 6<11:%d>, info.si_code: 0<11:%d>, info.si_errno:
0<11:%d>, cursig: 6<6:%d>
There is already just "%d" which also seems to match what we want.
Yes, it does seem to suffice for the non-register items that we actually have.
I do not see any change now on the files I tried.
OK. Then this change is OK with me.
But I found the comment "... the FORMAT strings typically already contain
their maximum width" confusing/misleading when the non-register item
formats in fact do not do any padding.
Then it will be sometimes unaligned.
I really do not mind much, we got far away from the goal of upstreaming an
Yes, but the issues in this are so much smaller and easier to decide! ;-)