On 7/24/20 11:59 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 10:47, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> wrote: >> >> On 7/24/20 11:38 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> On 7/24/20 9:56 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> On 24/07/2020 09.16, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>>> At least one of softmmu or user mode has to be enabled to use >>>>> capstone. If not, don't clone/built it. >>>>> >>>>> This save CI time for the tools/documentation-only build jobs. > >>>>> +if test -z "$capstone" && test $tcg = 'no' ; then # !tcg implies !softmmu >>>>> + capstone="no" >>>>> +fi >>>> >>>> I don't think this is right. You could have a KVM-only build where you >>>> still want to use the disassembler for the human monitor. >>> >>> I had the same question with KVM, I agree this is unclear, this is why >>> I added RFC. >>> >>> Don't we have !softmmu implies !kvm? >> >> It works because it falls back to the old disas.c (if capstone is >> here, use it, else fall-back). >> >> Does this means we can directly remove the capstone experiment & >> submodule without waiting for the libllvm integration? > > The theory (at least at the time) was that capstone was better > than the internal disassembler for at least some targets. > If we want to go from libllvm to capstone as our long term > plan that's cool, but until we actually do that I don't think > we should drop capstone. > > As far as this patch goes: if you want to disable capstone for > the tools-and-docs-only setup
This is also useful for a job downloading CI prerequisite artifacts. > then I think the right condition is > if [ "$bsd_user" = "no" -a "$linux_user" = "no" -a "$softmmu" = "no" ] ; then > capstone=no > fi OK, thanks! > > thanks > -- PMM >
