On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 10:51 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > You can rename R_BPF_64_64 to something more meaningful, e.g. R_BPF_64_LDIMM64. > Then I am fine that such a relocation type applies inconsecutive bytes. > > See below. Just change every occurrence of the old name in llvm-project. No. We cannot rename them, because certain gnu tools resolve relos by name and not by number. The only thing we can do is to document why such a name was picked in the first place. Back then 64_64 meant that it applied to 64-bit field in 16-byte insn. Whereas 64_32 meant that it applied to 32-bit field in 8-byte insn. 64_64 used to be called 64_MAPFD relo, but was renamed early enough while we still had time to do such rename. Now backward compatibility is more important than odd looking names.
