Re: [PATCH 1/1] objdump: Add callx support for BPF CPU v1

[Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr>]

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 1:13 AM Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 11:47 PM Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Feb 2024, Will Hawkins wrote:
> >
> > > Add support for disassembling the callx instruction back to CPU v1.
> > >
> > > include/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > >       * opcode/bpf.h (enum bpf_insn_id):
> > >
> > > opcodes/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > >       * bpf-opc.c:
> > >
> > > ChangeLog:
> > >
> > >       * sim/bpf/bpf-sim.c (execute):
> >
> > Not commenting on the rest of the patch but there's missing text
> > after ":" above. Beware: gcc/contrib/mklog.py doesn't help with
> > that part. :)
> >
>
> Thank you! I thought something looked suspicious but because it was
> what contrib/mklog.py gave me, I assumed you all had special
> requirements! I will fix it and resubmit.
>
> Thank you again!
> Will
>
>

Please disregard this version of the patch. I will resubmit a v2 patch
soon. There is a discrepancy between the way that gcc encodes the
callx (aka callr) and the way that clang encodes the callx. I am
working with the author of the IETF standardization document for the
BPF ISA to understand how the instruction encoding will be specified.
Once that discussion has concluded, I will resubmit the patch.

Sorry for the extra emails.

Will


>
> > Happy hacking!
> >
> > brgds, H-P