Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 May 2016 16:24:08 +0200 | From | Jiri Olsa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 10/11] perf callchain: Support x86 target platform |
| |
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 06:58:40PM +0800, Hekuang wrote:
SNIP
> > I think it's ok to include arch/arm/....c > > from arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c > > > > jirka > > By following your advise, if ARCH=x86, the file tree will > be like this: > > arch/x86 > - arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c > - arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_32.c > - arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_64.c > - arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-arm.c > > And for ARCH=arm (host machine is arm, it should be considered) > arch/arm > - arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c > - arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_32.c > - arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_64.c > - arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-arm.c > > For arm64: > arch/arm64 > - arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c > - arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_32.c > - arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_64.c > - arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-arm.c > > But in my patch, the file tree is like this: > > arch > - arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c > - arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_64.c > - arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_32.c > - arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-arm.c > > I admit that > > +libperf-$(CONFIG_LIBUNWIND_X86) += x86/util/unwind-libunwind_x86_32.o > > is not so good, but do you think the above file tree is > too redunctant?
i see.. we could leave it like that, I just wish it'd be more clear.. one last thought:
how about moving libunwind arch files into special folder:
util/libunwind/arm64.c util/libunwind/x86_32.c util/libunwind/x86_64.c util/libunwind/arm.c
thanks, jirka
| |