On Tue, 12 Aug 2025, David Faust wrote:
> + if (TREE_CODE (*node) == FUNCTION_TYPE || TREE_CODE (*node) == METHOD_TYPE)
> + {
> + /* Treat btf_type_tag applied to a function type as applying to the
> + return type instead. Otherwise with GNU syntax there is no way to
> + apply type_tag to the return type; the parser always associates it
> + to the function_type node. btf_decl_tag can (should) be used to
> + annotate the function itself. */
> + tree ret_type = TREE_TYPE (*node);
> + tree new_attrs = tree_cons (name, args, TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (ret_type));
> + tree new_type = build_type_attribute_qual_variant (ret_type,
> + new_attrs,
> + TYPE_QUALS (ret_type));
> + TREE_TYPE (*node) = new_type;
Is there some reason it's impossible for the function type here to be in
use for any other declaration? If not, modifying the return type of the
existing function type in-place like this seems unsafe.
--
Joseph S. Myers
josmy...@redhat.com
