[clang] [llvm] [BPF] Do atomic_fetch_*() pattern matching with memory ordering (PR #107343)

jemarch wrote: > Merged #107343 into main. I am preparing the corresponding patch for GCC. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107343 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-c

Re: [PATCH] D143967: [DebugInfo][BPF] Add 'btf:type_tag' annotation in DWARF

> eddyz87 added a comment. > > In D143967#4232089 , @jemarch wrote: > >> Thinking about typedef, some C cases may be problematic if we adopt the >> flexible rule we are discussing: >> >> typedef int bar; >> const bar __tag1 var1; >> bar var2; >> >

Re: [PATCH] D143967: [DebugInfo][BPF] Add 'btf:type_tag' annotation in DWARF

> eddyz87 added a subscriber: anakryiko. > eddyz87 added a comment. > > In D143967#4231746 , @jemarch wrote: > >>> eddyz87 added a comment. >>> ... >>> If we consider type tag a qualifier, conceptually it would be simpler >>> if ordering would not matter f

Re: [PATCH] D143967: [DebugInfo][BPF] Add 'btf:type_tag' annotation in DWARF

> eddyz87 added a subscriber: anakryiko. > eddyz87 added a comment. > > In D143967#4231746 , @jemarch wrote: > >>> eddyz87 added a comment. >>> ... >>> If we consider type tag a qualifier, conceptually it would be simpler >>> if ordering would not matter f

Re: [PATCH] D143967: [DebugInfo][BPF] Add 'btf:type_tag' annotation in DWARF

> eddyz87 added a comment. > > In D143967#4231517 , @dfaust wrote: > >> In D143967#4220233 , @jemarch >> wrote: >> >>> >> >> Ok, I understand your point. >> For example if we have: >> >> volatile int __tag1 b;

Re: [PATCH] D143967: [DebugInfo][BPF] Add 'btf:type_tag' annotation in DWARF

> eddyz87 added a comment. > > In D143967#4200331 , @dfaust wrote: > >> In D143967#4197288 , @eddyz87 >> wrote: >> >>> ... >>> I think there are two sides to this: >>> >>> - conceptual: is it ok to allow annotatio

Re: [PATCH] D143967: [DebugInfo][BPF] Add 'btf:type_tag' annotation in DWARF

> eddyz87 added a comment. > > In D143967#4197041 , @dfaust wrote: > >> The way I see it both 'volatile' and the type tag are modifying >> 'int' type here, so the annotation DIE more properly fits as a child >> of 'int' rather than the 'volatile'. >> >> I

Re: [PATCH] D143967: [DebugInfo][BPF] Add 'btf:type_tag' annotation in DWARF

> eddyz87 added a subscriber: jemarch. > eddyz87 added a comment. > > Hi @jemarch, > > Could you please take a look to verify that this implementation is on > the same page with what is planned for GCC? Sure. Can you please add David Faust as a subscriber as well? I don't know if he has an acco