On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 3:14 AM Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Odd. I replied to this yesterday, but somehow it wasn't sent. > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:35 PM Jose E. Marchesi > > <jose.marchesi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > On 4/26/23 10:37 AM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote: > >> >> Just a heads up, we just committed support for the assembly syntax > >> >> used > >> >> by clang to the GNU assembler [1]. > >> > > >> > Thanks! Do you which gcc release is expected to contain these changes? > >> > >> This is the assembler, i.e. binutils. > >> We don't need to update the compiler. > >> > >> >> Salud! > >> >> [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2023-April/127222.html > > > > This is awesome! > > We recently converted tens of thousands of lines of bpf asm from macros > > to inline asm in C. > > See tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_*.c > > I wonder how gas-bpf can deal with that. > > Inline assembly shall work. > > > We had to fix several inline asm issues in clang to get to this point > > and probably more to come. > > We will give these tests a try and fix problems as we find them :) > > We actually came with some ambiguities, undefined stuff, and other > issues with the syntax while doing the implementation. We hope to > discuss some of that during the LSF/MM/BPF next week, so we can > consolidate the language in both toolchains. > > Speaking of which, we are preparing the material for the "compiled BPF" > activity during LSF/MM/BPF. I think the BPF track hasn't been scheduled > yet, but how much time will we have to discuss about the topic? Awesome. I'd love to participate. Martin, Daniel, What is the schedule for bpf track ?
