This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB 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: Consistent format for memory addresses


 > > If you are saying that the address formats will only differ in their
 > > number of leading zeros, and not in other ways, then that is good enough
 > > for my purposes.
 >
 >
 > Well, it's a number, right?  What else can possibly change in the
 > address format that leaves the numeric value unmodified?  The only
 > other thing, besides leading zeros, that I can think of is sign
 > extension in some weird 32/64 bit situations.  But that's a theory, I
 > don't even know if it's possible in practice.  So I'd say leading
 > zeros is all you need to worry about for now.

If you're not constrained by knowledge of the internals of GDB like myself,
there are many possibilities. One command could start with a different
offset. It could work in the other direction.  From the start or end of the
heap, the stack. It could be in octal, in decimal...

...but as you say, thats not the case.

Nick


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