Re: bpf jit

[Alexander Nasonov <alnsn%yandex.ru@localhost>]

Martin Husemann wrote:
> I had a look at what it would take to add support for sparc* to bpf_jit
> and sljit - and found that the effort (both amount of work and
> complexity) is roughly the same. The hardest part is verifying it, we
> don't have reasonable tests for either [in bpf context, I don't know
> about a potentialy existing sljit test suite that could be used
> indepently of the bpf stuff to verify a new codegen] currently. I will
> have a look at it once we settle this discussion.

Both sljit and bpfjit come with tests. Mine tests should cover all bpf
instructions and many corner cases (e.g. overflows, divisions by zero).

Zoltán may start working on sparc at some point. He replied to me
privately that someone offered him a sparc box but he's busy with other
things at the moment.

Alex