On Sun, Jan 4, 2026 at 9:49 AM David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Coming back to the fundamental problem you're trying to solve - am I > understanding correctly it is this: > > Compiler optimizes a function and doesn't preserve it's ABI. > You want to allow your users of BPF to write a call to, or reimplementation > of (which is it? is it some third thing?) this function that matches the > lowered/non-ABI matching signature.
Yes. There is no reimplementation here. Users should just use the *real* signatures. > So you'd like DWARF (well, BPF, which is built from DWARF? encoded in DWARF?) > to encode a source signature that is equivalent to the optimized/new calling > convention of the function? There is no BPF involved here. The signature changed should be encoded in dwarf. > > But folks here are pushing back by suggesting that that optimized calling > convention may not be representable in the source language? which I think is > accurate/fair... Could you clarify here? In the compiler, we can capture the changed signature. BTW, currently we only target the C language as it is our use case. -- Dwarf-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss
