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: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: walfred dot tedeschi at intel dot com, brobecker at adacore dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:23:05 +0200
- 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> <56A11E0E dot 80403 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:06:06 +0000
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> CC: palves@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> 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.
Both variants are fine, IMO.
Thanks.