From: jose.marchesi@oracle.com (Jose E. Marchesi)
To: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] eBPF support for GNU binutils
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 21:13:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87blzvmxis.fsf@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <768B654F-A66B-4CCE-9320-D096538B23F2@netronome.com> (Jiong Wang's message of "Tue, 21 May 2019 19:14:47 +0100")
>> Despite using a different syntax for the assembler (the llvm assembler
>> uses a C-ish expression-based syntax while the GNU assembler opts for
>> a more classic assembly-language syntax) this implementation tries to
>> provide inter-operability with clang/llvm generated objects.
>
> I also noticed your implementation doesn’t seem to use the same sub-register
> syntax as what LLVM assembler is doing.
>
> x register for 64-bit, and w register for 32-bit sub-register.
>
> So:
> add r0, r1, r2 means BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BFF_X
> add w0, w1, w1 means BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X
>
> ASAICT, different register prefix for different register width is also adopted
> by quite a few other GNU assembler targets like AArch64, X86_64.
>
> Right. I opted for using different mnemonics for alu and alu64
> instructions, as it seemed to be simpler.
>
> What was your rationale for using sub-register notation?
It is the same instruction operating on different register classes,
sub-register is a new register class, so define separate notation
for them. This also simplifies compiler back-end when generating
sub-register instructions, at least for LLVM, and is likely for GCC
as well.
LLVM eBPF backend has full support for generating sub-register ISA,
Well, the way I read the spec, these look like different instructions
operating on the same registers, only with different semantics :)
But yeah, it is basically two different ways to look at the same thing,
at the ISA level.
Given that both llvm and ebpf_asm use some kind of sub-registers (using
different register names, or suffixes) I guess I could do the same... In
principle I don't have a strong preference, but I have to think about
it, and determine what would be the impact in my on-going GCC backend.
Thanks for the info. Much appreciated.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-21 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20190520164526.13491-1-jose.marchesi () oracle ! com>
2019-05-21 15:41 ` [PATCH 0/9] eBPF support for GNU binutils Jiong Wang
2019-05-21 17:06 ` Jose E. Marchesi
2019-05-21 18:14 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-21 19:13 ` Jose E. Marchesi [this message]
2019-05-21 17:43 ` David Miller
2019-05-21 18:18 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-05-21 18:58 ` Jose E. Marchesi
2019-05-21 19:02 ` Edward Cree
2019-05-21 19:34 ` Jose E. Marchesi
2019-05-21 19:49 ` Edward Cree
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87blzvmxis.fsf@oracle.com \
--to=jose.marchesi@oracle.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jiong.wang@netronome.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).