hey Arnaldo
On 17/10/2024 21:27, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 10:24:32AM +0100, Alan Maguire wrote:
>> Among other things, this helps simplify tests/btf_functions.sh.
>
> Thanks, applied both patches.
>
I'm still not seeing those patches in the next tree; is it possible they
got lost in the flurry of changes? Thanks!
Alan
> - Arnaldo
>
>> Signed-off-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> btf_loader.c | 7 ++++---
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/btf_loader.c b/btf_loader.c
>> index c70b67f..4814f29 100644
>> --- a/btf_loader.c
>> +++ b/btf_loader.c
>> @@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ static int create_new_tag(struct cu *cu, int type, const struct btf_type *tp, ui
>> case BTF_KIND_TYPE_TAG: tag->tag = DW_TAG_LLVM_annotation; break;
>> default:
>> free(tag);
>> - printf("%s: Unknown type %d\n\n", __func__, type);
>> + fprintf(stderr, "%s: Unknown type %d\n\n", __func__, type);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ static int process_decl_tag(struct cu *cu, const struct btf_type *tp)
>> tag = cu__tag(cu, tp->type);
>>
>> if (tag == NULL) {
>> - printf("WARNING: BTF_KIND_DECL_TAG for unknown BTF id %d\n", tp->type);
>> + fprintf(stderr, "WARNING: BTF_KIND_DECL_TAG for unknown BTF id %d\n", tp->type);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -478,7 +478,8 @@ static int process_decl_tag(struct cu *cu, const struct btf_type *tp)
>>
>> if (tag->attribute != NULL) {
>> char bf[128];
>> - printf("WARNING: still unsuported BTF_KIND_DECL_TAG(%s) for %s already with attribute (%s), ignoring\n",
>> +
>> + fprintf(stderr, "WARNING: still unsuported BTF_KIND_DECL_TAG(%s) for %s already with attribute (%s), ignoring\n",
>> attribute, tag__name(tag, cu, bf, sizeof(bf), NULL), tag->attribute);
>> } else {
>> tag->attribute = attribute;
>> --
>> 2.43.5
