On Sun, 2023-03-26 at 20:57 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > 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_%=; \ Yes, /* ... */ work as expected. // work as well, but one has to be careful, because without \n the full string after first // would be a comment.
