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
