On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 7:03 AM Dave Thaler <dthaler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I am forwarding the email below (after converting HTML to plain text) > to the mailto:bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx list so replies can go to both lists. > > Please use this one for any replies. > > Thanks, > Dave > > > From: Bpf <bpf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Watson Ladd > > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 10:05 PM > > To: bpf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: [Bpf] Review of draft-thaler-bpf-isa-01 > > > > Dear BPF wg, > > > > I took a look at the draft and think it has some issues, unsurprisingly at this stage. One is > > the specification seems to use an underspecified C pseudo code for operations vs > > defining them mathematically. Hi Watson, This is not "underspecified C" pseudo code. This is assembly syntax parsed and emitted by GCC, LLVM, gas, Linux Kernel, etc. > > The good news is I think this is very fixable although tedious. > > > > The other thornier issues are memory model etc. But the overall structure seems good > > and the document overall makes sense. What do you mean by "memory model" ? Do you see a reference to it ? Please be specific.
