|
|
|
|
|
by bjackman
28 days ago
|
|
Yeah I actually advocate for dropping to assembly quite a lot in BPF: - portability isn't a concern - BPF ASM syntax is quite readable - it can often let you write simpler code by directly doing what the verifier needs instead of dancing around trying to make Clang do it for you. I think the most exciting alternative BPF language would be one where the compiler interacts with the verifier. E.g. if the program included a logical proof of correctness that the verifier could check more efficiently than its limited builtin analysis. |
|