Re: [Lsf-pc] LSF/MM/BPF activity proposal: Compiled BPF

["Jose E. Marchesi" <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>]

> On 1/30/23 6:47 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>> Hello.
>> We would like to suggest to the LSF/MM/BPF organization to have a
>> working session on "compiled BPF", i.e. on the part of BPF that involves
>> compilers and linkers.  This mainly involves the two mainstream
>> compilers that target BPF: clang and GCC, but other BPF toolchains are
>> slowly appearing (like the Rust compiler) and that makes it even more
>> important to consolidate compiled BPF.
>> Examples of topics to cover are the covergence of the support in
>> both
>> clang/llvm and GCC, several aspects of the ABI that need to be
>> discussed/clarified/decided in order to avoid undefined compiler
>> behavior and divergences, issues related to the BPF standarization, and
>> suggestions on how to lift some of the existing limitations impacting
>> BPF C programs.
>> The goal is to reach agreements about particular things, document
>> the
>> agreements, stick to them, and a clear plan to implement whatever is
>> needed in the respective compilers/tools.
>> Potential participants in case the activity takes place:
>> - Both David Faust (GNU toolchain, BPF port hacker) and myself (GNU
>>    toolchain, BPF port maintainer) are willing to attend the event,
>>    prepare discussion material, organize and participate in the
>>    discussions.
>> - Nick Desaulniers (LLVM maintainer) is also interested in attending
>> and
>>    participating, provided other compromises he has in May don't get in
>>    the way.
>
> Plus Yonghong Song with regards to LLVM BPF backend.

Indeed, it would make very little sense for the whole thing to happen
without him.  I just didn't want to speak for him (I consulted with both
David and Nick before sending the proposal) ;)

>
>> - More? (Please add yourself to this list by replying to this email in
>>    case you are interested.)
>> Would the BPF community and the LSF/MM/BPF organization be
>> interested in
>> having such an activity?
>
> Yes, we can definitely add this to the agenda for the BPF track. This sounds
> very reasonable to me!
>
> Thanks Jose!

Awesome :)
Thanks to you!