[patch] readelf.c: Use real output width [Re: [patch] Implement reglocs for s390/s390x]
roland at hack.frob.com
Thu Oct 11 22:57:51 UTC 2012
> The "debug dump" I provided:
> ebx: 21687<11:%11d> ecx: 21689<11:%11d> edx: 6<11:%11d>
> esi: 0<11:%11d> edi: -143585292<11:%11d> ebp: 0xf7562308<11: 0x%.8x>
> eax: 0<11:%11d> eip: 0xf774d430<11: 0x%.8x> eflags: 0x00000296<11: 0x%.8x>
> 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 aligned,
> 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! ;-)
More information about the elfutils-devel