Le 25/11/2022 à 06:38, Naveen N. Rao a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 24/11/2022 à 14:49, Naveen N. Rao a écrit :
>>> Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 24/11/2022 à 11:13, Naveen N. Rao a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy wrote:
In what direction could that change in
Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 24/11/2022 à 14:49, Naveen N. Rao a écrit :
Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 24/11/2022 à 11:13, Naveen N. Rao a écrit :
Christophe Leroy wrote:
In what direction could that change in the future ?
For me if they change that it becomes an API change.
More of an ext
Le 24/11/2022 à 14:49, Naveen N. Rao a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 24/11/2022 à 11:13, Naveen N. Rao a écrit :
>>> Christophe Leroy wrote:
ldimm64 is not only used for loading function addresses, and
>>>
>>> That's probably true today, but I worry that that can change upstr
Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 24/11/2022 à 11:13, Naveen N. Rao a écrit :
Christophe Leroy wrote:
ldimm64 is not only used for loading function addresses, and
That's probably true today, but I worry that that can change upstream
and we may not notice at all.
Not sure what you mean.
Today P
Le 24/11/2022 à 11:13, Naveen N. Rao a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> ldimm64 is not only used for loading function addresses, and
>
> That's probably true today, but I worry that that can change upstream
> and we may not notice at all.
Not sure what you mean.
Today POWERPC considers th
Christophe Leroy wrote:
ldimm64 is not only used for loading function addresses, and
That's probably true today, but I worry that that can change upstream
and we may not notice at all.
the NOPs added for padding are impacting performance, so avoid
them when not necessary.
On QEMU mac99, wi
ldimm64 is not only used for loading function addresses, and
the NOPs added for padding are impacting performance, so avoid
them when not necessary.
On QEMU mac99, with the patch:
test_bpf: #829 ALU64_MOV_K: all immediate value magnitudes jited:1 167436810
PASS
test_bpf: #831 ALU64_OR_K: all imm
