On Mon, 2025-07-07 at 17:49 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 5:18 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2025-07-07 at 17:12 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > check_cfg(), right, thank you. > > > > But still, this feels like an artificial limitation. > > > > Just because we have a check_cfg() pass as a separate thing we need > > > > this hint. > > > > > > and insn_successors(). > > > All of them have to work before the main verifier analysis. > > > > Yeah, I see. > > In theory, it shouldn't be hard to write a reaching definitions > > analysis and make it do an additional pass once a connection between > > gotox and a map is established. And have this run before main > > verification pass. > > Yes. In theory :) But we don't have it today. > Hence I don't understand the pushback to llvm-aid. > If/when such dataflow analysis is available, we can drop llvm-aid. No pushback, I forgot about changes needed in check_cfg() + I need to rant a bit.
