Daniel Xu
Daniel Xu
> I had a discussion with @viktormalik today and we came up with another solution: call functions the same way as built-ins, and if a function with the same name...
I wonder if we're being too aggressive with lifetime annotations. One would think LLVM can analyze lifetimes without annotations. When I play with clang, I can't seem to get it...
In this case in particular, I think we cannot end the lifetime until the last time it's used. But that implies doing lifetime analysis which I don't think we do...
Needs a rebase I think. But otherwise good to merge. Sorry - this fell thru the cracks
Ah ok, so I was getting confused about `dev_t` cuz apparently kernel `dev_t` is different than the one userspace sees: https://lwn.net/Articles/50703/ . So that all looks good. Just one question...
Ha, `&&` vs `&` -- didn't spot that. With fix, it looks like all activity is going to minor number 0. Is that expected? I'm not too familiar with block...
The same major as before (correct one I think)
Yeah I can repro this as well. > Let's try and get a simpler repro. Does this script still fail for you? > > ``` > #include > > BEGIN...
``` stat.bt:20:32-42: ERROR: Struct/union of type 'struct file' does not contain a field named 'f_lock' BEGIN { $x = (struct file*)0; $x->f_lock; } ```
Since I can repro and I'm familiar with these codepaths, I can take this one