Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] perf annotate: Add cross arch annotate support | From | Ravi Bangoria <> | Date | Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:03:38 +0530 |
| |
On Friday 19 August 2016 04:18 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:09:51PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote: >> Thanks Russell for reviewing. >> >> On Friday 19 August 2016 01:20 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:59:01AM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote: >>>> -static struct ins instructions[] = { >>>> +static struct ins instructions_x86[] = { >>>> { .name = "add", .ops = &mov_ops, }, >>>> { .name = "addl", .ops = &mov_ops, }, >>>> { .name = "addq", .ops = &mov_ops, }, >>>> { .name = "addw", .ops = &mov_ops, }, >>>> { .name = "and", .ops = &mov_ops, }, >>>> -#ifdef __arm__ >>>> - { .name = "b", .ops = &jump_ops, }, // might also be a call >>>> - { .name = "bcc", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> - { .name = "bcs", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> - { .name = "beq", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> - { .name = "bge", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> - { .name = "bgt", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> - { .name = "bhi", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> - { .name = "bl", .ops = &call_ops, }, >>>> - { .name = "bls", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> - { .name = "blt", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> - { .name = "blx", .ops = &call_ops, }, >>>> - { .name = "bne", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> -#endif >>> Notice that ARM includes a lot of other instructions from this table, >>> not just those above. >>> >>>> { .name = "bts", .ops = &mov_ops, }, >>>> { .name = "call", .ops = &call_ops, }, >>>> { .name = "callq", .ops = &call_ops, }, >>>> @@ -456,6 +444,21 @@ static struct ins instructions[] = { >>>> { .name = "retq", .ops = &ret_ops, }, >>>> }; >>>> >>>> +static struct ins instructions_arm[] = { >>>> + { .name = "b", .ops = &jump_ops, }, /* might also be a call */ >>>> + { .name = "bcc", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> + { .name = "bcs", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> + { .name = "beq", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> + { .name = "bge", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> + { .name = "bgt", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> + { .name = "bhi", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> + { .name = "bl", .ops = &call_ops, }, >>>> + { .name = "bls", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> + { .name = "blt", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> + { .name = "blx", .ops = &call_ops, }, >>>> + { .name = "bne", .ops = &jump_ops, }, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>> ... >>>> + if (!strcmp(norm_arch, NORM_X86)) { >>>> + instructions = instructions_x86; >>>> + nmemb = ARRAY_SIZE(instructions_x86); >>>> + } else if (!strcmp(norm_arch, NORM_ARM)) { >>>> + instructions = instructions_arm; >>>> + nmemb = ARRAY_SIZE(instructions_arm); >>> But these changes result in _only_ the ones that were in the #if __arm__ >>> being matched. This is wrong. >>> >>> If we want to go that way, we need to add _all_ arm instructions to >>> instructions_arm, not just those within the #if. >> Yes, I've mentioned same in cover letter as well. >> >> Can I add all x86 instructions for arm as well? If not, can you please >> provide a list of arm instructions that needs to be added here. > If it were me doing a change like this, I'd be trying to preserve the > current behaviour to avoid causing regressions, which would mean > ensuring that all the instructions that were visible before the change > remain visible after the change, even those which are obviously x86 > specific but were still in the table anyway. It then becomes a cleanup > matter later to remove those which aren't relevent, rather than having > to chase around wondering why the tool broke. > > I'm afraid I don't have time to look at this (I'm chasing regressions > and bugs in the kernel) so I'd suggest you try to avoid causing > regressions in this tool... >
Yes Russell, Fair point. Will send a next series.
-Ravi
| |