On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:08 AM Xi Wang <xi.wang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't think there's some consistent semantics of "offsets" across > the JITs of different architectures (maybe it's good to clean that > up). RV64 and RV32 JITs are doing something similar to arm64 with > respect to offsets. CCing Björn and Luke. As I understand it, there are two strategies JITs use to keep track of the ctx->offset table. Some JITs (RV32, RV64, arm32, arm64 currently, x86-32) track the end of each instruction (e.g., ctx->offset[i] marks the beginning of instruction i + 1). This requires care to handle jumps to the first instruction to avoid using ctx->offset[-1]. The RV32 and RV64 JITs have special handling for this case, while the arm32, arm64, and x86-32 JITs appear not to. The arm32 and x32 probably need to be fixed for the same reason arm64 does. The other strategy is for ctx->offset[i] to track the beginning of instruction i. The x86-64 JIT currently works this way. This can be easier to use (no need to special case -1) but looks to be trickier to construct. This patch changes the arm64 JIT to work this way. I don't think either strategy is inherently better, both can be "correct" as long as the JIT uses ctx->offset in the right way. This might be a good opportunity to change the JITs to be consistent about this (especially if the arm32, arm64, and x32 JITs all need to be fixed anyways). Having all JITs agree on the meaning of ctx->offset could help future readers debug / understand the code, and could help to someday verify the ctx->offset construction. Any thoughts? - Luke
