From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 156BE385741D for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:07:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 156BE385741D Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D5321C30; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:07:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wotan.suse.de (wotan.suse.de [10.160.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 325132C141; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:07:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wotan.suse.de (Postfix, from userid 10510) id 29EF86825; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:07:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wotan.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D446810; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:07:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:07:04 +0000 (UTC) From: Michael Matz To: Jan Beulich cc: Binutils Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: drop print_operand_value()'s "hex" parameter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: binutils@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Binutils mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:07:06 -0000 Hey, On Tue, 14 Jun 2022, Jan Beulich via Binutils wrote: > For quite some time all callers have been passing 1 / true. While there > fold the final oappend_with_style() calls. > --- > Instead of 0x%x I could see us using %#x, thus printing at least zero > without the redundant 0x prefix. Thoughts? As you're asking for opinions, here's mine: in this case I think consistency is better, I think there's no obvious reason to print 0 but 0xa (for instance) and not 0x0 and 0xa Sure, it's redundant, but IMHO that doesn't trump consistency. Ciao, Michael.