Re: Consistent format for memory addresses

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 06:39:51AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 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.

For the record it is possible in practice - this happens a lot on GDB
for MIPS.  However GDB should generally be consistent in this case
about whether the leading bits are displayed, and in _that_ case,
inconsistency is usually a bug.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC