bpf2c should show BPF assembly not names of uBPF specific macros, in comments

[dthaler]

Describe the feature you'd like supported

Today bpf2c generteas comments like:

// EBPF_OP_ADD64_IMM pc=526 dst=r1 src=r0 offset=0 imm=-1

whereas bpf assembly would be:

// add %r1, -1

The latter is more consistent with llvm-objdump, bpf_conformance, and other such tools.
It also avoids using a uBPF specific define (EBPF_OP_ADD64_IMM) in bpf2c which shouldn't depend on uBPF.

Proposed solution

Use BPF assembler syntax in comments instead

Additional context

No response

[Alan-Jowett]

Given that bpf_conformance has an assembler it probably makes sense to add the disassembler to bpf_conformance as well.

[Alan-Jowett]

Created: Alan-Jowett/bpf_conformance#184 to track adding support for a disassembler.