On 13/02/2018 05:09, John Fastabend wrote:
To find these we do the following
1.a: Build the CFG of all the instructions so we can walk around the
program easily.
1.b: Find the basic blocks and build the basic block CFG. After this
with a few helper calls we can move arou
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 06:14:53PM +, Edward Cree wrote:
>
> Anyway, that's my design, I hope it wasn't _too_ horrifying, and I hope to
> have some RFC patches in the next week or so.
I prefer John's approach since it fits into my thinking how verifier should
evolve
and follows the outline
On 13/02/18 05:09, John Fastabend wrote:
> I have some code that is getting close to working on bounded loops. Here
> is how I think it should work, (with some annotations on what I have).
Thanks for this! For comparison, since my code is also 'getting close to
working' here's how my approach wor
On 02/12/2018 02:22 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 10/02/18 03:18, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 07:31:55PM +, Edward Cree wrote:
>>> By storing subprog boundaries as a subprogno mark on each insn, rather than
>>> a start (and implicit end) for each subprog, we collect a nu
On 10/02/18 03:18, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 07:31:55PM +, Edward Cree wrote:
>> By storing subprog boundaries as a subprogno mark on each insn, rather than
>> a start (and implicit end) for each subprog, we collect a number of gains:
>> * More efficient determination
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 07:31:55PM +, Edward Cree wrote:
> By storing subprog boundaries as a subprogno mark on each insn, rather than
> a start (and implicit end) for each subprog, we collect a number of gains:
> * More efficient determination of which subprog contains a given insn, and
> t
By storing subprog boundaries as a subprogno mark on each insn, rather than
a start (and implicit end) for each subprog, we collect a number of gains:
* More efficient determination of which subprog contains a given insn, and
thus of find_subprog (which subprog begins at a given insn).
* Number
