[Bug translator/14431] char * always being printed as, possibly INVALID/NULL "<unknown>", string without giving actual address

["mjw at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14431

--- Comment #5 from Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com> 2012-08-06 18:59:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > 
> > > It's tough to automagically do The Right Thing without knowing what the user is
> > > looking for.
> > 
> > Yes, that is why we should just give all information instead of guessing what
> > the user wants.
> 
> But too much information will make it difficult to read.

Of course. But having the address there isn't too much, is it?

> I meant that since the value of kernel pointers on 64-bit will always take 16
> characters, it clutters the output quite a bit.  That may be a matter of
> opinion, but this is supposed to be "pretty" printing.

Aha. I think this is "pretty", and not cluttered. But can easily be convinced
of any other formatting. So you have a different suggestion for adding the
address?

> > I do like the usage of plain ? instead of "<unknown>".
> 
> Note the difference that I proposed it *without* quotes, so it's clear that the
> string is not really "?".

ah, yes, but that is somewhat more difficult since then we have to be
more fancy about the results of [kernel|user]_string2(). How about using
"<?>".

> > Is that really that simple? I wasn't able to do that easily. Except by printing
> > the fields individually with my own identifiers.
> 
> Yes, you'd print fields yourself individually to get the formatting you really
> want.

Which isn't really practical for larger/deeper structs.
And [unsigned] char * is kind of special since it is often not used as
string pointer, so warrants having the address around always.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.