On Wed, 2016-22-06 at 16:25:02 UTC, "Naveen N. Rao" wrote:
> The existing LI32() macro can sometimes result in a sign-extended 32-bit
> load that does not clear the top 32-bits properly. As an example,
> loading 0x7fff results in the register containing
> 0x7fff. While this does
The existing LI32() macro can sometimes result in a sign-extended 32-bit
load that does not clear the top 32-bits properly. As an example,
loading 0x7fff results in the register containing
0x7fff. While this does not impact classic BPF JIT
implementation (since that only uses the
