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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).