On Thu, 2022-02-10 at 14:44 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > +/* declare the int64_t type to actually be 32-bit to ensure the skeleton > > + * uses actual sizes and doesn't just copy the type name > > + */ > > +typedef __s32 int64_t; > > +int64_t intest64 = -1; > > +int64_t outtest64 = -1; > > This will be so confusing... But when you drop __s32 special handling > you can just use __s32 directly, right? Actually, no. We need the type to have the textual representation of a 64-bit type (int64_t) but a different underlying size. The test is ensuring that the skeleton is using the underlying type and not the apparent type. You need a layer of typedefs to introduce that confusion and intXX_t is ideal because it's not normally transitively available in .bpf.c programs. `typedef signed char int64_t;` would also work, if you prefer that.
