On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 8:02 AM Alexis Lothoré
<alexis.lothore@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> - those attributes are not reliably encoded by compilers in DWARF info
What would be an example of unreliability?
Maybe they're reliable enough for cases we're concerned about ?
> +
> + if (param_idx >= cu->nr_register_params) {
> + if(dwarf_attr(die, DW_AT_type, &attr)){
> + Dwarf_Die type_die;
> + if (dwarf_formref_die(&attr, &type_die) &&
> + dwarf_tag(&type_die) == DW_TAG_structure_type) {
> + parm->uncertain_loc = 1;
> + }
> + }
> + return parm;
This is too pessimistic.
In
bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_9(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, char f,
short g, struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5
h, long i)
struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 {
char a;
short b;
int c;
long d;
};
though it's passed on the stack it fits into normal calling convention.
It doesn't have align or packed attributes, so no need to exclude it ?
