Alexei Starovoitov via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-22 17:27 UTC
[llvm-dev] [iovisor-dev] [PATCH, BPF 0/5] Minor improvements to the bpf backend
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote:> Hi, > > Using EM_NONE for the bpf backend e_machine value is less than optimal. > With a unique value we can interact with other tools, e.g. objdump for > disassembly. > > As a bonus, I noticed a few missing patterns that are useful to implement.Hi Richard, sounds like em number is now set to 247 and paper work filed? When should I expect v2 of these patches? 3.9 release branch will be forked mid july. would be great to get these changes in soon. Thanks
Richard Henderson via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-22 17:29 UTC
[llvm-dev] [iovisor-dev] [PATCH, BPF 0/5] Minor improvements to the bpf backend
On 06/22/2016 10:27 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev > <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Using EM_NONE for the bpf backend e_machine value is less than optimal. >> With a unique value we can interact with other tools, e.g. objdump for >> disassembly. >> >> As a bonus, I noticed a few missing patterns that are useful to implement. > > Hi Richard, > > sounds like em number is now set to 247 and paper work filed?Yes.> When should I expect v2 of these patches? > 3.9 release branch will be forked mid july. > would be great to get these changes in soon.I'm working on that today. r~