From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Lucien Murray-Pitts <lucienmp.qemu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 09:27:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191015082708.GB22859@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-gLHm0D6vR0Rvpbi_bbVWpKspvm8YLSVPHpCVP6HmDUg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 02:33:34PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 11:21, Lucien Murray-Pitts
> <lucienmp.qemu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Whilst working on a m68k patch I noticed that the capstone in use
> > today (3.0) doesnt support the M68K and thus a hand turned disasm
> > function is used.
> >
> > The newer capstone (5.0) appears to support a few more CPU, inc. m68k.
> >
> > Why we move to this newer capstone?
>
> Moving to a newer capstone sounds like a good idea. The only
> reason we haven't moved forward as far as I'm aware is that
> nobody has done the work to send a patch to do that move
> forward to the newer version. Richard Henderson would
> probably know if there was any other blocker.
Bearing in mind our distro support policy, we need to continue to
support 3.0 series of capstone for a while yet based on what I
see in various distros. eg Ubuntu 18.04 LTS has 3.0.4, as does
Fedora 29. Version 4.0 is only in a few very new distros:
https://repology.org/project/capstone/versions
We can of course use features from newer capstone, *provided* we correctly
do conditional compilation so that we can still build against 3.0 series
on distros that have that version.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-15 8:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-05 10:11 RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone? Lucien Murray-Pitts
2019-10-05 10:20 ` Lucien Murray-Pitts
2019-10-05 13:33 ` Peter Maydell
2019-10-15 8:27 ` Daniel P. Berrangé [this message]
2019-10-15 8:36 ` Thomas Huth
2019-10-15 8:47 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-10-15 9:02 ` Marc-André Lureau
2019-10-15 9:14 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-10-15 9:57 ` Peter Maydell
2019-10-15 10:12 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-10-14 23:46 ` Richard Henderson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191015082708.GB22859@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=lucienmp.qemu@gmail.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.