On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 8:16 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 6:19 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 9:16 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It was my understanding from the RFC feedback that this "lighter" way
> > > > is preferable and we already have some tests written like that.
> > > > Don't have a strong opinion on this topic.
> > >
> > > Ack, I'm obviously losing a bunch of context here :-(
> > > I like coalescing better, but if the original suggestion was to use
> > > this lighter way, I'll keep that in mind while reviewing.
> >
> > I still prefer the clean look of the tests, so I've applied this set.
> >
> > But I'm not going to insist that this is the only style developers
> > should use moving forward.
> > Whoever prefers "" style can use it in the future tests.
>
> Great, because I found out in practice that inability to add comments
> to the manually written asm code is a pretty big limitation.
What do you mean by "inability" ?
The comments can be added. See verifier_and.c
r0 &= 0xFFFF1234; \
/* Upper bits are unknown but AND above masks out 1 zero'ing
lower bits */\
if w0 < 1 goto l0_%=; \
