On Tue, 2024-09-24 at 19:02 +0000, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 24th, 2024 at 7:31 AM, Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> However, as I understand, Eduard suggests that these tables might be
> unnecessary at all, if the way of checking for and merging
> inconsistent functions is changed. Eduard, please feel free to correct
> me or expand on the idea.
I was thinking about keeping the functions in a separate BTF before
decision is made if that function has valid prototype.
But the table would still be necessary because of the flags tracked in:
struct parameter {
struct tag tag;
const char *name;
uint8_t optimized:1;
uint8_t unexpected_reg:1;
uint8_t has_loc:1;
};
I'd say let's ignore this for now and do a simple refactoring with a
lock/atomic that you describe.
