On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:08:36PM -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 05:05:28PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >>
> >> If one of those eBPF verifiers only accepts a certain number of INSN, as
> >> fundamental a
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 05:05:28PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>
>> If one of those eBPF verifiers only accepts a certain number of INSN, as
>> fundamental as backwards jumps, we might end up with two compiler?
>
> two compilers?
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 05:05:28PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>
> If one of those eBPF verifiers only accepts a certain number of INSN, as
> fundamental as backwards jumps, we might end up with two compiler?
two compilers? We already have five. There is gcc bpf backend (unmaintained)
and n
Hello,
On 03.12.2016 00:34, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 08:42:41PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016, at 20:25, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>> On 02.12.2016 19:39, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 10:27:12PM +0100, Hannes Frede
