From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31819 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2016 18:06:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 31804 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jan 2016 18:06:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Upper X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:06:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CF45BBF6C; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:06:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u0LI667v005882; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:06:06 -0500 Message-ID: <56A11E0E.80403@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:06:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii , Walfred Tedeschi CC: palves@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: FW: [PATCH V4 6/6] Intel MPX bound violation handling. References: <1453387705-6597-1-git-send-email-walfred.tedeschi@intel.com> <1453387705-6597-7-git-send-email-walfred.tedeschi@intel.com> <83vb6m9a0u.fsf@gnu.org> <56A11694.4000502@intel.com> <83io2m95yt.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83io2m95yt.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00545.txt.bz2 On 01/21/2016 05:51 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:34:12 +0100 >> From: Walfred Tedeschi >> 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