On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 01:34:32 GMT, Yasumasa Suenaga <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I agree with this change because this function >> (`DwarfParser::parse_dwarf_instructions()`) proceeds CFI instruction to the >> PC what we want to see. `_current_pc` which represents PC in CFI should be >> proceeded even if it equals with `pc`. > > I will approve this change when the confliction is resolved. Thanks, I agree that <= is correct, and the current SA tests do pass. However, a raw return PC may successfully resolve to the next CFI row, so the exception-based PC−1 fallback would not catch this case. I overlooked this interaction during my earlier review; sorry about that. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/33374#discussion_r4355739573
