On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:57 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I still think that presence of a literal string "bty_type_tag" might > make some grepping easier but whatever. If there are no further > objections I'll post the changes using "btf:type_tag" literal tomorrow. > Andrii, thanks for the input. I don't think there is precedent for using ':' inside DW_AT_name. Can we actually use the same "btf_type_tag" name? Aren't we gonna use a different container than DW_TAG_LLVM_annotation ? Since we're picking a standard across gcc and llvm it will be some common DW_TAG_... with the same number, no ? I forgot what we agreed on during office hours.
