Hi David,
David Faust writes:
> 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?
It turns out that defining this hook is not the proper solution.
I am trying a different approach which I believe is better.
Thanks,
Cupertino
>>
>> 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);
>>
