> +(define_insn "*branch_on_di"
> + [(set (pc)
> + (if_then_else (match_operator 3 "ordered_comparison_operator"
> + [(match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "r")
> + (match_operand:DI 1 "reg_or_imm_operand" "rI")])
> + (
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> +(define_insn "*branch_on_di"
> + [(set (pc)
> + (if_then_else (match_operator 3 "ordered_comparison_operator"
> + [(match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "r")
> + (match_operand:DI 1 "reg_or_imm_operand
jose.march...@oracle.com (Jose E. Marchesi) writes:
> > +#undef TARGET_PASS_BY_REFERENCE
> > +#define TARGET_PASS_BY_REFERENCE bpf_pass_by_reference
>
> I might have misunderstood, but I thought from an earlier (IRC?)
> message, it wasn't possible for the ca
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 04:11:46AM +0200, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> A colleague (who actually _uses_ eBPF extensively, ahem) tells me that
> the kernel verifier allows to pass addresses of the caller's stack
> frame, tracking that it is a ptr to a stack location, and it knows which
> stack it
> +#undef TARGET_PASS_BY_REFERENCE
> +#define TARGET_PASS_BY_REFERENCE bpf_pass_by_reference
I might have misunderstood, but I thought from an earlier (IRC?)
message, it wasn't possible for the callee to access the caller's
frame, which was why you
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 23:14:35 +0200
jose.march...@oracle.com (Jose E. Marchesi) wrote:
> The kernel verifier doesn't allow backward jumps.
>
> This may change at some point. There is much discussion among the
> kernel hackers in whether it is possible to allow bounded loops in a
> safe way. In t
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 03:42:53PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > I have been thinking about Segher's suggestion on providing options to
> > lift some of the limitations, for compiler testing. Unfortunately, many
> > of the restrictions are deeply rooted in the design of the
> > architecture... or the
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:14:35PM +0200, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> The kernel verifier doesn't allow backward jumps.
>
> This may change at some point. There is much discussion among the
> kernel hackers in whether it is possible to allow bounded loops in a
> safe way. In that case, some of the
On 8/20/19 3:14 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff.
>
> > This patch adds a port for the Linux kernel eBPF architecture to GCC.
> >
> > ChangeLog:
> >
> > * configure.ac: Support for bpf-*-* targets.
> > * configure: Regenerate.
> >
> > contrib/ChangeLo
Hi Jeff.
> This patch adds a port for the Linux kernel eBPF architecture to GCC.
>
> ChangeLog:
>
> * configure.ac: Support for bpf-*-* targets.
> * configure: Regenerate.
>
> contrib/ChangeLog:
>
> * config-list.mk (LIST): Disable go in bpf-*-*
On 8/16/19 6:59 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> This patch adds a port for the Linux kernel eBPF architecture to GCC.
>
> ChangeLog:
>
> * configure.ac: Support for bpf-*-* targets.
> * configure: Regenerate.
>
> contrib/ChangeLog:
>
> * config-list.mk (LIST): Disable go in bpf-*-* targets.
jose.march...@oracle.com (Jose E. Marchesi) writes:
> Hi Richard!
>
> Many thanks for the deep review. I'm addressing some of your questions
> below.
>
> > [...]
> > +/* Override options and do some other initialization. */
> > +
> > +static void
> > +bpf_option_override (void
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:20:03PM +0200, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> > + (PLUS ADDR_BASE CONST_INT)
> > + (PLUS CONST_INT ADDR_BASE)
>
> The second one isn't canonical rtl, so you shouldn't (need to) handle it.
> Please raise a bug if you find a case where it's
> > +/*** Order of Allocation of Registers. */
> > +
> > +/* We generally want to put call-clobbered registers ahead of
> > + call-saved ones. (IRA expects this.) */
> > +#define REG_ALLOC_ORDER\
> > + {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
> [...]
> +;; Division
> +(define_insn "div3"
> + [(set (match_operand:AM 0 "register_operand" "=r,r")
> +(div:AM (match_operand:AM 1 "register_operand" " 0,0")
> +(match_operand:AM 2 "reg_or_imm_operand" "r,I")))]
> + ""
> + "div\t%0,
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 08:57:22PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > +/*** Order of Allocation of Registers. */
> > +
> > +/* We generally want to put call-clobbered registers ahead of
> > + call-saved ones. (IRA expects this.) */
> > +#define REG_ALLOC_ORDER
Hi Richard!
Many thanks for the deep review. I'm addressing some of your questions
below.
> [...]
> +/* Override options and do some other initialization. */
> +
> +static void
> +bpf_option_override (void)
> +{
> + /* Set the default target kernel if no -mkernel
In addition to Segher's comments:
jema...@gnu.org (Jose E. Marchesi) writes:
> [...]
> +/* This file contains the definition of the kernel helpers that are
> + available to eBPF programs.
> +
> + The primary source for information on kernel helpers is the
> + linux/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h f
This patch adds a port for the Linux kernel eBPF architecture to GCC.
ChangeLog:
* configure.ac: Support for bpf-*-* targets.
* configure: Regenerate.
contrib/ChangeLog:
* config-list.mk (LIST): Disable go in bpf-*-* targets.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config.gcc: Support for bpf-*-* targets.
19 matches
Mail list logo
