On March 31, 2023 10:35:52 AM GMT-03:00, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Fri, 2023-03-31 at 09:13 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> [...]
>> >
>> > +static type_id_t skip_llvm_annotations(const struct cu *cu, type_id_t id)
>> > +{
>> > + struct tag *type;
>> > +
>> > + for (;;) {
>> > + if (id == 0)
>> > + break;
>> > + type = cu__type(cu, id);
>> > + if (type == NULL || type->tag != DW_TAG_LLVM_annotation || type->type == id)
>> > + break;
>> > + id = type->type;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + return id;
>> > +}
>>
>> This part I didn't understand, do you see any possibility of a
>> DW_TAG_LLVM_annotation pointing to another DW_TAG_LLVM_annotation?
>
>Not at the moment, but it is no illegal, it is possible to write
>something like this:
>
> #define __t1 __attribute__((btf_type_tag("t1")))
> #define __t2 __attribute__((btf_type_tag("t2")))
>
> int __t1 __t2 *g;
>
>And to get BTF like ptr --> __t2 --> __t1 --> int.
Right, thanks for clarifying, I'll add this as a comment above the skip llvm function.
This patch is already in the 'next' branch, will move to 'master' later today.
- Arnaldo
>
>> [...]
