On Wed, 2024-04-10 at 15:49 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 09:33:20AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > So my feedback is to not worry about the exports, and instead focus on > > figuring > > out a way to make the generated code less bloated and easier to read/debug. > > I think it was mistake trying to centralize TDCALL/SEAMCALL calls into > few megawrappers. I think we can get better results by shifting leaf > function wrappers into assembly. > > We are going to have more assembly, but it should produce better result. > Adding macros can help to write such wrapper and minimizer boilerplate. > > Below is an example of how it can look like. It's not complete. I only > converted TDCALLs, but TDVMCALLs or SEAMCALLs. TDVMCALLs are going to be > more complex. > > Any opinions? Is it something worth investing more time? We discussed offline how implementing these for each TDVM/SEAMCALL increases the chances of a bug in just one TDVM/SEAMCALL. Which could making debugging problems more challenging. Kirill raised the possibility of some code generating solution like cpufeatures.h, that could take a spec and generate correct calls. So far no big wins have presented themselves. Kirill, do we think the path to move the messy part out-of-line will not work?
