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.