define-syscall: Add bpf target #387
Conversation
define-syscall/src/lib.rs
Outdated
| pub mod definitions; | ||
|
|
||
| #[cfg(target_feature = "static-syscalls")] | ||
| #[cfg(any(target_feature = "static-syscalls", target_arch = "bpf"))] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, just to make sure, but is this correct?
From what I understand, static-syscalls are only supported with sbfv3, which might not be enabled. The SIMD still hasn't been accepted: solana-foundation/solana-improvement-documents#178
In that case, shouldn't we avoid using static syscalls for bpf for now and instead use the old model?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point – we had an offline discussion about this. The use of static syscalls for sbpf v0 is unstable, since it was not designed to work with it. While the current implementation works, they have never been tested for v0.
To make this more explicitly, an "unstable-static-syscalls" feature was added to the crate, which needs to be enabled on target_arch = "bpf".
| [features] | ||
| unstable-static-syscalls = [] | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this feature is reasonable, because it conveys the message that it is usable, but we don't guarantee it to work.
To complement, we could write a short comment here saying "static syscalls for eBPF are experimental and not guaranteed to work".
Problem
The upstream compiler uses
target_arch = "bpf"when compiling tobpfel-unknown-nonetarget, while thecfgconditional compilation is currently using onlytarget_os = "solana".Solution
Add
target_arch = "bpf"along sidetarget_os = "solana".