Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:03 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Wait, what? This is a regression that *breaks people's programs* on >> compiler versions that are still very much in the wild! I mean, fine if >> you don't want to support new features on such files, but then surely we >> can at least revert back to the old behaviour? > > Those folks that care about compiling with old llvm would have to stick > to whatever loader they have instead of using libbpf. > It's not a backward compatibility breakage. What? It's a change in libbpf that breaks loading of existing BPF object files that were working (with libbpf) before. If that's not a backward compatibility break then that term has lost all meaning. >> I used "prog" because that's what iproute2 looks for if you don't supply > > Please don't use iproute2 as a reason to do anything in libbpf. It won't fly. Eh? Did you even read the email you're replying to? This issue has nothing to do with iproute2, that was an unrelated thing Andrii asked me to change when he was looking at my example... -Toke
