On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 11:44 +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
