[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0d0534e8-d05a-5541-2380-58a4ea36551b@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 17:25:21 +0000
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/13] bpf: btf: Add BTF_KIND_FUNC and
BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO
On 10/17/18 9:13 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 17/10/18 08:23, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> This patch adds BTF_KIND_FUNC and BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO
>> support to the type section. BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO is used
>> to specify the type of a function pointer. With this,
>> BTF has a complete set of C types (except float).
>>
>> BTF_KIND_FUNC is used to specify the signature of a
>> defined subprogram. BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO can be referenced
>> by another type, e.g., a pointer type, and BTF_KIND_FUNC
>> type cannot be referenced by another type.
> Why are distinct kinds created for these? A function body is
> a value of function type, and since there's no way (in C) to
> declare a variable of function type (only pointer-to-
> function), any declaration of function type must necessarily
> be a BTF_KIND_FUNC, whereas any other reference to a function
> type (e.g. a declaration of type pointer to function type)
> must, as you state above, be a BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO.
> In fact, you can tell the difference just from name_off, since
> a (C-legal) BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO will always be anonymous (as
> the pointee of a pointer type), while a BTF_KIND_FUNC will
> have the name of the subprogram.
What you stated is true, BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO corresponds to
dwarf subroutine tag which has no name while BTF_KIND_FUNC
must have a valid name. The original design is to have both
since they are corresponding to different dwarf constructs.
Martin, what do you think?
>
> -Ed
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists