On Tue, 2023-10-03 at 17:29 -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> It seems a bit weird to copy all of this. Is it trying to be faster
> or
> something?
> Couldn't it just check r->start in execmem_text/data_alloc() path and
> switch to EXECMEM_DEFAULT if needed then? The execmem_range_is_data()
> part that comes later could be added to the logic there too. So this
> seems like unnecessary complexity to me or I don't see the reason.

I guess this is a bad idea because if you have the full size array
sitting around anyway you might as well use it and reduce the
exec_mem_alloc() logic. Just looking at it from the x86 side (and
similar) though, where there is actually only one execmem_range and it
building this whole array with identical data and it seems weird.

Reply via email to