This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: FW: [PATCH V4 6/6] Intel MPX bound violation handling.


Am 1/21/2016 um 7:06 PM schrieb Pedro Alves:
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.

I will pick Pedro's suggestion, looks nicer to the user.
Also adding the documentation lines to the Signal part.


Thanks,
Pedro Alves


Thanks for the review and additions!
-Fred

Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]