On 4/29/17 7:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: David Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:24:50 -0400 (EDT)
Some of your bugs should be fixed by this patch below, I'll add
test cases soon:
Ok, here are all the local changes in my tree. I made the relocs
match LLVM and I fixed some dwarf debugging stuff.
With this we are also down to one test case failure under binutils/
and it's something weird with merging 64-bit notes which I should be
able to fix soon.
I can fix these bugs fast, keep reporting.
BTW, should I just remove tailcall from the opcode table altogether?
yeah. tailcall is not a special opcode from user space point of view.
Only after normal call with func_id=bpf_tail_call passes verifier
then verifier will change insn->code into CALL|X
It's done only to have two 'case' statement in the interpreter,
so that normal calls and tailcalls don't interfere.
From user space pov CALL|X opcode is reserved and we can use it
for something in the future. Just need to change interpeter and JITs.
case 'O':
- (*info->fprintf_func) (stream, "%d", off);
+ (*info->fprintf_func) (stream, "%d", (int) off);
tried this diff. It looks better
10: 7b 1a f8 ff 00 00 00 00 stdw [r1+-8], r10
18: 79 a1 f8 ff 00 00 00 00 lddw r10, [r1+-8]
I wonder if '+' can be removed as well.
'-g' still doesn't seem to work:
/w/binutils-gdb/bld/binutils/objdump: invalid relocation type 10
/w/binutils-gdb/bld/binutils/objdump: BFD (GNU Binutils)
2.28.51.20170429 assertion fail ../../bfd/elf64-bpf.c:139
0: 18 01 00 00 39 47 98 83 ldimm64 r0, 590618314553
