yonghong-song added a comment. In D83242#2167721 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83242#2167721>, @anakryiko wrote:
> After thinking about this a bit more, I think adding a new TYPE_EXISTENCE > (instead of FIELD_EXISTENCE) relocation type is the better way to handle > this. It would allow Clang to be stricter as to what is passed into > FIELD_EXISTENCE (only fields, not types) vs TYPE_EXISTENCE(only types, no > fields). It will make it cleaner on libbpf side as well, because the > validation and relocation logic is different between handling fields and > types. So overall, I think it will be beneficial on every level of the stack > to separate them. I hope it's not too hard to make this change? Yes. Sounds better to separate them as they handle disjoint patterns. Will make the change. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83242/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83242 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
