On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 7:18 AM Lorenz Bauer <lorenz.bauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 6:24 PM Andrii Nakryiko > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Did you get round to fixing this, or did you decide to leave it as is? > > > > Trying to recall, was there anything to do on the libbpf side, or was > > it purely a compiler-side change? > > I'm not 100% sure TBH. I'd like clang to behave consistently for > local_id and target_id. I don't know whether that would break libbpf. > *checks code* libbpf just passes through whatever ID compiler generated, so there doesn't seem to be any change to libbpf. Seems like compiler-only change. cc'ing Eduard as well, if he's curious enough to check > Lorenz
