Julian Samaroo

The `IOError` is generally harmless, the file will be removed one way or the other (if it doesn't, let me know!). The `AssertionError` should be mostly "fixed" on `master`, but...

Yeah that's a good find - an alternative to `sort(to_delete; rev=true)` is to call `sort!(to_delete; rev=true)`, which would reuse the `to_delete` array, and should still return it too. Would you...

I think we should probably resolve #45 (maybe by reviving https://github.com/iovisor/ubpf/pull/53 as an optional feature?) before addressing atomics, since we don't have any tests for using maps right now.

These are the sorts of things that we really need a verifier for (and I imagine that's what PREVAIL does for Windows eBPF). With that, we'd also need some way...

You could check out the libbpf (https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf) project, which comes from the Linux kernel but is dual-licensed with BSD 2-clause and LGPL.

Might be nice if we can set this via `ubpf_create`, since not every VM in the same process may have the same purpose (and thus might have varying needs for...

Isn't that just a more complicated form of `ubpf_register`: https://github.com/iovisor/ubpf/blob/c7c019c507c09c20243c5cbaf535d73a979aec23/vm/ubpf_vm.c#L85?

I think I'm in favor of having an optional callback to do this mapping at runtime/JIT time. I still think `ubpf_create` should accept an argument to allow specifying the initial...

Helper calls in BPF are encoded as a call to an integer, where the integer is the index of the registered function you want to call. I think it should...

`ebpf-verifier` is C++ (and a lot of it), and has non-trivial dependencies like gmp and boost. I think ubpf could pretty easily implement much of the same functionality (including some...