Hi David. >> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:19:58PM +0200, Jose E. Marchesi wrote: >>> >>> As such, the property of being verifiable is irrelevant. >> >> No. It's a fundamental property of BPF. >> If it's not verifiable it's not BPF. It's not xBPF either. >> Please call it something else and don't confuse people that your ISA >> has any overlap with BPF. It doesn't. It's not verifiable. > > I have to agree with Alexei here. You are trying to create something > which is not fundamentally BPF and it will create a lot of confusion > and hardship on people who are working on BPF when you publish > binaries with this machine type. How would that create confusion and harship if the binaries are clearly marked as containing extensions? It is the lack of flagging that would create such confusion, and that situation is precisely what I'm trying to avoid with this proposal of using a bit in e_flags.
