[llvm-dev] [iovisor-dev] [PATCH, BPF 4/5] BPF: Add 32-bit move patterns

[Richard Henderson via llvm-dev]

On 06/15/2016 10:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> but before we go too far with new asm syntax like 'movw',
> Do you want to revamp the whole thing?
> imo the kernel verifier asm output is easier to read
> due to being C-like and now more people understand it
> vs what llvm bpf backend produces.

While the kernel verifier format is ok for the 64-bit opcodes, I personally
can't stand what it does for the 32-bit opcodes, e.g.

	(u32) r0 += (u32) r1

That's not only unnecessarily verbose, it's bad C.

> Right now we have two asms: what kernel verifier prints
> and llvm bpf asm output. Kernel side we cannot drastically
> change anymore, but minor changes should be ok if it
> helps to converge to one common bpf asm syntax.

Why, is the kernel verifier output considered part of the abi now?  That seems
like an odd position to take.

I also have a disassembler written for elfutils, so that it ties in nicely with
objdump.  I started with tweaks to the kernel output (which can be seen in the
post I quoted earlier), but have since changed to use the llvm disassembly (and
have not yet re-posted).


r~