Regarding the tables: > Such tables are seen as invaluable for determining correctness of other > implementations. So the feedback is that it's important to have such if we > want everyone else to do the right thing. > > > These people should speak up then. > > I agree. Here's two public examples... Christoph Hellwig, said on May 17 at https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220517091011.GA18723@xxxxxx/: > One useful thing for this would be an opcode table with all the > optional field usage in machine readable format. > > Jim who is on CC has already built a nice table off all opcodes based > on existing material that might be a good starting point. Jim Harris responded on that thread with a strawman which was used as the basis for the table in the appendix. Jim then commented in the github version on August 30: > In my opinion, this table is the biggest thing that has been missing, > and will be most essential for a more "formal" specification. I will encourage them and others to comment on this thread. Dave
