From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28358 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2007 16:26:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 28275 invoked by uid 48); 20 Jun 2007 16:26:14 -0000 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:26:00 -0000 From: "cagney at redhat dot com" To: frysk-bugzilla@sourceware.org Message-ID: <20070620162614.4669.cagney@redhat.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug general/4669] New: Should memory window table elements include 0x? X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo Mailing-List: contact frysk-bugzilla-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-bugzilla-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q2/txt/msg00351.txt.bz2 List-Id: This came up in discussion in 2007-06-20 meeting; I'm not clear that it was resolved fully. It was noted that the default should be: location, byte, "word in natural byte order", I assume that in the below: Should memory window table elements include 0x? For instance: 0x00000000 | 01 02 03 04 | 04030201 vs: 0x00000000 | 0x01 0x02 0x03 0x04 | 0x04030201 vs: 0x00000000 | 01 02 03 04 | 0x04030201 My take is that the third should be the default: -> fixed sized hex quantities (8, 16, ...) dropped the 0x -> "word" sized hex quantities included it For instance | 8-bit | 16-bit BE | Word BE 0x00000000 | 01 02 03 04 | 0102 0304 | 0x01020304 -- Summary: Should memory window table elements include 0x? Product: frysk Version: unspecified Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: general AssignedTo: frysk-bugzilla at sourceware dot org ReportedBy: cagney at redhat dot com OtherBugsDependingO 3119 nThis: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4669 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.