Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] perf annotate: add powerpc support
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Date: 2016-06-30 06:23:53
Also in:
lkml
On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 11:44 +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/annotate.c b/tools/perf/util/annotate.c index 36a5825..b87eac7 100644 --- a/tools/perf/util/annotate.c +++ b/tools/perf/util/annotate.c@@ -476,6 +481,125 @@ static int ins__cmp(const void *a, const void *b)
...
+
+static struct ins *ins__find_powerpc(const char *name)
+{
+ int i;
+ struct ins *ins;
+ struct ins_ops *ops;
+ static struct instructions_powerpc head;
+ static bool list_initialized;
+
+ /*
+ * - Interested only if instruction starts with 'b'.
+ * - Few start with 'b', but aren't branch instructions.
+ * - Let's also ignore instructions involving 'ctr' and
+ * 'tar' since target branch addresses for those can't
+ * be determined statically.
+ */
+ if (name[0] != 'b' ||
+ !strncmp(name, "bcd", 3) ||
+ !strncmp(name, "brinc", 5) ||
+ !strncmp(name, "bper", 4) ||
+ strstr(name, "ctr") ||
+ strstr(name, "tar"))
+ return NULL;It would be good if 'bctr' was at least recognised as a branch, even if we can't determine the target. They are very common. It doesn't look like we have the opcode handy here? Could we get it somehow? That would make this a *lot* more robust. cheers