Fix bug when jumping to a multiple of 0x10 #254
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
The description suggests there is a rounding error. Is that really the case? What seems to be happening is if, say, you try to navigate to 0x20 -- the GUI is displaying byte 0x20 (which is on the previous line), and not the 0x20 heading. If this is what is happening, I wonder if it makes sense to have the GUI start at byte 0 (instead of 1). If not, this change looks good. |
whyitfor
approved these changes
Mar 16, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
One sentence summary of this PR (This should go in the CHANGELOG!)
Fix bug where jumping to a multiple of
0x10in the GUI went to the previous line.The changes introduced in #243 caused a different bug where jumping to an exact multiple of
0x10rounded down the address to jump to and went to the previous line in the hex view of the GUI. This change fixes that issue.Anyone you think should look at this, specifically?
@whyitfor