On 11/30/21, 4:54 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> v2 attached.
I accidentally left a redundant check in v2, so here is a v3 without
it.
My proposed patch adds a few checks for the unsupported bit patterns
in the visibility code, but it is far from exhaustive. I'm wondering
if it might be better just to add a function or macro that everything
exported from heapam_visibility.c is expected to call. My guess is
the main argument against that would be the possible performance
impact.
Nathan
