From: "Jose E. Marchesi" <jose.marchesi@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 00:10:07 +0200 > 1) Due to BPF being so restrictive, many hundreds of GCC tests won't > even build, because they use functions having more than 5 arguments, > or functions with too big stack frames, or indirect calls, etc. We > want to be able to test our backend properly, so we added the -mxbpf > option in order to relax some of these restrictions. > > 2) We are working on a BPF simulator that works with GDB. For that to > work, we needed to add a "breakpoint" instruction that GDB can patch > in the program. Having a simulator also allows us to run more GCC > tests. > > 3) With some extensions, it becomes possible to support DWARF call frame > information, and therefore to debug BPF programs in GDB with > unwinding support. You can build with -mxbpf, debug, then build > again without -mxbpf. All sounds like features to propose for BPF itself, rather than throw into some weird extension. Why not come to the bpf community and discuss the need for these features?
