Re: bpf jit

[Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost>]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:13:54 +0100
Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:

> BPF JIT from FreeBSD is something what is here, works and is more tested.
> Seems (or seemed?) smaller and simpler to work with as well, since SLJIT
> was not ready to be used as an in-kernel JIT at all.  As I understand,
> you have addressed this by now.
> 
> I guess the problem with SLJIT is that nobody else here is familiar with it
> besides yourself, therefore it is difficult to decide on its suitability.
> Lack of documentation, as you already pointed out, contributes to this as
> well.  There are various other questions unanswered, e.g. would we diverge
> SLJIT code in favour of better integration into NetBSD?  Would the changes
> be committed to upstream or we would maintain SLJIT ourselves or perhaps
> would even take over the maintenance?
> 
> Personally, I do not have a strong preference to use the current JIT code,
> but not yet enough confidence to support SLJIT either.

If I recall, LLVM also comes with a register-based VM and a JIT for it,
would this be totally unsuitable for future use here?  I admit I'm not
very familiar with it or its portability and usability status.

Thanks,
-- 
Matt