> >>>> + /* For POE SEGSEGV, show additional information. */ >>> >>> Is this really supposed to be POE SEGSEGV or is it a typo? >>> >> >> For now, in my knowledge, AARCH64_SEGV_PKUERR is only used for POE. >> However, it will also be used soon for another upcoming feature. >> I would recommend to either simply eliminate the comment, or make it more clear like >> >> /* For memory permission faults, e.g. due to a permission overlay >> restriction when feature POE is enabled. */ >> >> Matthieu > >Sorry, I may not have been clear, but I was referring specifically to >the SEGSEGV. Should it be SIGSEGV instead? Yes Luis, that's a typo. It should be SIGSEGV instead of SEGSEGV, thanks for spotting it, I will update in the re-spin. Regarding the comment itself, while SIGSEGV already implies a memory fault, AARCH64_SEGV_PKUERR is currently only generated for Permission Overlay violations. I think something like following would be more accurate description. /* Additional information for SIGSEGV caused by a permission overlay violation. */ Regards, Sri. ________________________________ From: Luis Sent: 23 July 2026 00:11 To: Matthieu Longo ; Srinath Parvathaneni ; gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: guinevere@redhat.com ; thiago.bauermann@linaro.org ; Ezra Sitorus ; simark@simark.ca Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] [PATCH 2/5] gdb: Improve SIGSEGV diagnostics for POE faults On 22/07/2026 10:41, Matthieu Longo wrote: > On 21/07/2026 21:30, Luis wrote: >> On 14/07/2026 21:15, srinath.parvathaneni@arm.com wrote: >>> From: Srinath Parvathaneni >>> >>> diff --git a/gdb/aarch64-linux-tdep.c b/gdb/aarch64-linux-tdep.c >>> index f11eccc1bc1..b8a02ab9972 100644 >>> --- a/gdb/aarch64-linux-tdep.c >>> +++ b/gdb/aarch64-linux-tdep.c >>> @@ -2734,6 +2741,14 @@ aarch64_linux_report_signal_info (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, >>> uiout->field_string ("logical-tag", hex_string (ltag)); >>> } >>> } >>> + /* For POE SEGSEGV, show additional information. */ >> >> Is this really supposed to be POE SEGSEGV or is it a typo? >> > > For now, in my knowledge, AARCH64_SEGV_PKUERR is only used for POE. > However, it will also be used soon for another upcoming feature. > I would recommend to either simply eliminate the comment, or make it more clear like > > /* For memory permission faults, e.g. due to a permission overlay > restriction when feature POE is enabled. */ > > Matthieu Sorry, I may not have been clear, but I was referring specifically to the SEGSEGV. Should it be SIGSEGV instead?