Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "oeof26zhejlhpomrmogdxtmyxuhpwvga".
2016 Jun 16
2
[iovisor-dev] [PATCH, BPF 1/5] BPF: Use a provisional ELF e_machine value
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev
<iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote:
> This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc,
> elfutils, and binutils.
great!
Can you share the link to glibc and the other patches?
> diff --git a/include/llvm/Support/ELF.h b/include/llvm/Support/ELF.h
> index 352fd8a..fb8ff71 100644
> ---
2016 Jun 16
2
[iovisor-dev] [PATCH, BPF 1/5] BPF: Use a provisional ELF e_machine value
...>>> elfutils, and binutils.
>>
>> great!
>> Can you share the link to glibc and the other patches?
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-06/msg00212.html
>
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/elfutils-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org/message/OEOF26ZHEJLHPOMRMOGDXTMYXUHPWVGA/
>
> I haven't sent one yet for binutils.
>
>>> + EM_BPF = 0xeb9f, // Linux kernel bpf virtual machine
Great, can that be assumed the final magic e_machine number for the ELF
header that eBPF loaders can check for as well then (I do like 0xeb9f ;))?
>> was t...