On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 11:51 AM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 10:11 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > [...] > > > > > What do you think about something like "debug_type_tag" or > > > > > "debug_type_annotation" (and a similar update for the decl tags)? > > > > > The translation into BTF records would be the same, but the DWARF info > > > > > would stand on its own without being tied to BTF. > > > > > > > > > > (Naming is a bit tricky since terms like 'tag' are already in use by > > > > > DWARF, e.g. "type tag" in the context of DWARF DIEs makes me think of > > > > > DW_TAG_xxxx_type...) > > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand, early proposals for the tags were more generic > > > > > but the LLVM reviewers wished for something more specific due to the > > > > > relatively limited use of the tags at the time. Now that the tags and > > > > > their DWARF format have matured I think a good case can be made to > > > > > make these generic. We'd be happy to help push for such change. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, BTF is a thing we are using this annotation for. > > > > Any other tool can reuse DW_TAG_LLVM_annotation, but it will need a > > > > way to distinguish it's annotations from BTF annotations. And this can > > > > be done by using a different DW_AT_name. So, it seems logical to > > > > retain "btf" in the DW_AT_name. What do you think? > > > > > > OK I can understand keeping it BTF specific. > > > > > > Other than that, I don't come up with any significantly different idea > > > than to use the ":v2" suffix, so let's go with "btf_type_tag:v2"? > > > > I don't like v2 suffix either. > > Please come up with something else. > > Nothing particularly good comes to mind: > - btf_type_tag:wrapper > - btf_type_tag:outer > - btf_type_tag:own > - exterior_btf_type_tag > - outer_btf_tag > - btf_type_prefix > - btf_type_qualifier (as in const/volatile) > > Or might as well use btf_type_tag:gcc, as you suggested earlier, > but it is as confusing as the others. btf.type_tag or btf:type_tag or btf/type_tag (you get the idea, it's "BTF scoped")?
