Re: [PATCH] tools/gdbsx: fix 'g' packet response for 64bit guests - Marek Marczykowski-Górecki

From: "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki" <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: Elena Ufimtseva <elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/gdbsx: fix 'g' packet response for 64bit guests
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:10:07 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180731161007.GR1371@mail-itl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180731090024.xbovqmyfrj6xiaid@citrix.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1053 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:00:24AM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 04:30:42AM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > --- a/tools/debugger/gdbsx/gx/gx_local.c
> > +++ b/tools/debugger/gdbsx/gx/gx_local.c
> > @@ -45,8 +45,8 @@ prnt_32regs(struct xg_gdb_regs32 *r32p)
> >  static void
> >  prnt_64regs(struct xg_gdb_regs64 *r64p)
> >  {
> > -    printf("rip:"XGF64" rsp:"XGF64" flags:"XGF64"\n", r64p->rip, r64p->rsp,
> > -           r64p->rflags);
> > +    printf("rip:"XGF64" rsp:"XGF64" flags:%08x\n", r64p->rip, r64p->rsp,
> > +           r64p->eflags);
> 
> I think it would be better to introduce XGF32 and XGFM32 in the header.

I was inspired by prnt_32regs function, which use explicit %08x. Should
it be changed there too (to PRIx32)? Otherwise that would be
inconsistent (and maybe warrant a totally separate cleanup).

-- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel