[PATCH v2 1/1] objdump, as: Add callx support for BPF CPU v1

[Will Hawkins]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:14 AM Jose E. Marchesi
<jose.marchesi@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:58 AM Jose E. Marchesi
> > <jose.marchesi@oracle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > First, as I said yesterday in my direct message to you, thank you for
> >> > making binutils such a pleasant place to contribute to FOSS. You have
> >> > no idea what that means to contributors like me!
> >> >
> >> > Second, thank you for this helpful critique. I really appreciated
> >> > reading your feedback and will reply inline below (including with an
> >> > offer for a patch unrelated to callx that may clean up some of the
> >> > non-constant uses throughout the bpf-specific code).
> >> >
> >> > Third, there is good news: The heavy lifting of this patch is largely
> >> > "overcome by events" -- clang/llvm developers are changing their
> >> > encoding of the callx instruction to more closely match what gcc does.
> >> > In fact, v3 of this patch will look much more like v1 than v2.
> >>
> >> Hi Will.
> >>
> >> It seems to me that all we need binutils-wise is to enable the callx
> >> instruction with BPF >= v1.  No other changes are necessary as far as I
> >> can see, other than adjusting the testsuite accordingly.
> >
> > It should be making its way across the Internet to you now!
>
> Thanks :)
>
> > The only thing ... it will probably cause a build error until a
> > corresponding patch in the simulator lands that takes into
> > consideration the new enum value.
> >
> > I am happy to handle that however you like!
>
> No problem.  I will tackle the simulator patch in the GDB list and apply
> both at almost the same time so the buildbots do not get (too) upset.

Thanks!! It's been fun working on this. And, as I offered to Nick last
night, I am more than happy to take on a little project to do a
cleanup of the code. Just let me know if you would be open to that!

Will

>
> > Sorry for the delay!
> > Will
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks!