Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 8:51 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 8:15 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. >> > >> > The user space library is not a kernel. >> > The library will change its interface. It will remove functions, features, etc. >> > That's what .map is for. >> >> Right, OK, so how do I use .map to get the old behaviour here? That's >> all I'm asking for, really... > > Fix old llvm. The users would have to upgrade either from llvm 7.x to > 7.x+1 or to llvm 10+. Right, so by "we keep a stable interface" you mean "we expect you to upgrade your entire toolchain every time you update the library". Gotcha! I'll rectify my newspeak dictionary straight away - doubleplusgood! -Toke
