poke-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] pickles: Update btf.pk


From: Jose E. Marchesi
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pickles: Update btf.pk
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 07:35:31 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Hi David.

> Update BTF pickle with recent additions/changes to the format:
> - BTF_KIND_DATASEC uses 'size' not 'type'
> - Add BTF_KIND_FLOAT
> - Add BTF_KIND_DECL_TAG and BTF_KIND_TYPE_TAG
>
> 2021-12-15  David Faust  <david.faust@oracle.com>
>
>       * pickles/btf.pk (BTF_KIND_FLOAT): New kind.
>       (BTF_KIND_DECL_TAG): Likewise.
>       (BTF_KIND_TYPE_TAG): Likewise.
>       (BTF_Decl_Tag): New type.
>       (BTF_Type): Update `info` bits usage to accomodate new type kinds.
>       BTF_KIND_DATASEC uses `size` variant of `attrs`.
>       Add `decl_tag` variant to `data`.
> ---
>  ChangeLog      | 10 ++++++++++
>  pickles/btf.pk | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/pickles/btf.pk b/pickles/btf.pk
> index 4832ada6..a23944db 100644
> --- a/pickles/btf.pk
> +++ b/pickles/btf.pk
> @@ -35,12 +35,15 @@ var BTF_KIND_UNKNOWN = 0,
>      BTF_KIND_FUNC = 12,
>      BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO = 13,
>      BTF_KIND_VAR = 14,
> -    BTF_KIND_DATASEC = 15;
> +    BTF_KIND_DATASEC = 15,
> +    BTF_KIND_FLOAT = 16,
> +    BTF_KIND_DECL_TAG = 17,
> +    BTF_KIND_TYPE_TAG = 18;
>  
>  var btf_kind_names =
>    ["unkn", "int", "ptr", "array", "struct", "union", "enum",
>     "fwd", "typedef", "volatile", "const", "restrict", "func",
> -   "func_proto", "var", "datasec"];
> +   "func_proto", "var", "datasec", "float", "decl_tag", "type_tag"];
>  
>  type BTF_Type_Id = uint<32>;
>  
> @@ -100,6 +103,14 @@ type BTF_Var_SecInfo =
>      offset<uint<32>,B> size;
>    };
>  
> +type BTF_Decl_Tag =
> +  struct
> +  {
> +    /* -1 if the tag is applied to the type itself,
> +       else the index of the tagged field/parameter/etc.  */
> +    uint<32> component_idx;
> +  };

Wouldn't that be 0xffff_ffff instead of -1?  In any case, it may be
useful for the user to have a variable like BTF_DECL_TAG_SELF defined to
this special value.

Other than that, the patch is OK for master.
Thanks.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]