From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 4E8153858D37; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:48:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4E8153858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1713181698;
	bh=ERMNA3ZUpujTb5CmcKY24epGaCl4j5F0vbuOnJmts0A=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=hAW/gKKM6sDHoQ9t+6wIZpxGCuRQltdpoi3DCZb4mSqjD5XJPIlsG5YudHLunz71D
	 Y742nxfIA+caroCUw37Bxp91qZ7AJ97rJN3yX0RuxuRnqMg1sMXzrAgcZBUAauesCt
	 5kLAyzhPOph26gLdeE+AtNC6DmrbXZk9lkrl2rDk=
From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug symtab/31268] gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn-amd64.exp regression
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:48:16 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: symtab
X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 15.1
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-31268-4717-DsaJfmpZPQ@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-31268-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-31268-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D31268

--- Comment #10 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Joel Brobecker from comment #9)
> Hi Tom,
>=20
> > I'd like the fix for this PR to be included in the 15.1 release.
>=20
> For the record, can you say which consideration(s?) made you reach this
> assessment?=20
>=20
> Looking at the fix, and in particular the title of the fix (out of bounds
> array access), I'm guessing that the out-of-bound condition is considered
> sufficiently critical that the fix should be in the release.

Hi Joel,

indeed, it's the fact that's it's an out-of-bound condition.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=