This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: FW: [PATCH V4 6/6] Intel MPX bound violation handling.
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, Walfred Tedeschi <walfred dot tedeschi at intel dot com>
- Cc: palves at redhat dot com, brobecker at adacore dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:06:06 +0000
- Subject: Re: FW: [PATCH V4 6/6] Intel MPX bound violation handling.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1453387705-6597-1-git-send-email-walfred dot tedeschi at intel dot com> <1453387705-6597-7-git-send-email-walfred dot tedeschi at intel dot com> <83vb6m9a0u dot fsf at gnu dot org> <AC542571535E904D8E8ADAE745D60B194452CD61 at IRSMSX104 dot ger dot corp dot intel dot com> <56A11694 dot 4000502 at intel dot com> <83io2m95yt dot fsf at gnu dot org>
On 01/21/2016 05:51 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:34:12 +0100
>> From: Walfred Tedeschi <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>
>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault upper bound
>> violation - bounds @{lbound = 0x603010, ubound = 0x603023@} accessing
>> 0x60302f.
>
> I still think the word "address" should be added after "accessing".
>
> But if no one else thinks it's important, I don't insist.
I'd think that accessing 0x60302f would be the most important
information here, and so it should be printed before the bounds even.
Say:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault
Upper bound violation while accessing address 0x60302f
Bounds: {lbound = 0x603010, ubound = 0x603023}
Note we still repeat the string "bound" 4 times. Maybe we
could reduce that:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault
Upper bound violation while accessing address 0x60302f
Bounds: [lower = 0x603010, upper = 0x603023]
But maybe lbound/ubound already have defined meaning to
the user.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves