From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id C278C3858299; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 19:07:51 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C278C3858299
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1701284871;
	bh=a5DIxIsp/31qvZv2yex+CyVO/WebiaNaikwhkQSTC5M=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=fbSxVxZqWGsutXvm4wxCz1CBbbIYHxLK0Mt9Q+SrvPSYTxxdBx6S9snpwvcEoMV3Y
	 grZ75O7JcfXfwJnADlwfI04f9MkWUf5tk8oqYzlHqk5Th6Q0uG6Vp4a+kx3VRnSlfj
	 K4WHA0b2qZIjaDAKN3awzOYzMckK8FKhMvckYVyQ=
From: "ibhagat at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/112656] btf: function prototypes generated with name
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 19:07:51 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ibhagat at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-112656-4-Tj5ZXHDxpp@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112656-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112656-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112656

--- Comment #7 from Indu Bhagat <ibhagat at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Currently generating everything at finish () when -mco-re is in effect is
sufficient for BPF needs.  BTF is generated late for -mco-re because of CO-=
RE
relocations: these are strings which record indexes into the source-level d=
ata
structures, e.g. "0:4:2:3", and are stored int the .BTF string table.  CO-R=
E is
handled in the BPF backend during expand, which is after debug_early_finish=
 ().

'Whether we should split BTF generation into two parts' is a larger question
not affecting the current PR at hand, I think. We should evaluate the overa=
ll
benefit of that approach (apart from the one we are seeing here - reproduci=
ble
BTF across targets), vs the implementation cost and complexity. If there is
interest.=