On 10/26/23 08:08, Cupertino Miranda wrote:
>
> Changes from v1:
> - Fixed Davids remarks on initial patch.
> - Fixed mistake with deleted '*'.
>
> Changes from v2:
> - Reversed return value for bpf_const_not_ok_for_debug_p function.
Hmm..
> +static bool
> +bpf_const_not_ok_for_debug_p (rtx p)
> +{
> + if (GET_CODE (p) == UNSPEC
> + && XINT (p, 1) == UNSPEC_CORE_RELOC)
> + return false;
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +#undef TARGET_CONST_NOT_OK_FOR_DEBUG_P
> +#define TARGET_CONST_NOT_OK_FOR_DEBUG_P bpf_const_not_ok_for_debug_p
-- Target Hook: bool TARGET_CONST_NOT_OK_FOR_DEBUG_P (rtx X)
This hook should return true if X should not be emitted into debug
sections.
As written now, won't this cause all ordinary (non-UNSPEC_CORE_RELOC)
consts to get rejected for debug? ("regular" debug i.e. DWARF, not to
be confused with the BTF.ext holding CO-RE relocs).
I see other targets implementing the hook returning true only in
specific cases and false otherwise. The implementation in v1 makes
more sense to me. Could you explain why flip the return value?
>
> Changes from v3:
> - Fixed ICE in two bpf-next tests:
> - if (!wi->is_lhs)
> - core_mark_as_access_index (gimple_get_lhs (wi->stmt));
> + tree lhs;
> + if (!wi->is_lhs
> + && (lhs = gimple_get_lhs (wi->stmt)) != NULL_TREE)
> + core_mark_as_access_index (lhs);
>
