[Qemu-devel] [PATCH, RFT] Update i386-dis.c from binutils 2.17

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH, RFT] Update i386-dis.c from binutils 2.17

[Blue Swirl]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 199 bytes --]

Hi,

This very lightly tested patch updates i386-dis.c from binutils 2.17.
If someone can test it more thoroughly and declare that the patch is
useful and it does not break anything, I may apply it.

[-- Attachment #2: update_i386_dis_binutils_2.17.diff --]
[-- Type: plain/text, Size: 78866 bytes --]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH, RFT] Update i386-dis.c from binutils 2.17

[Laurent Desnogues]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This very lightly tested patch updates i386-dis.c from binutils 2.17.
> If someone can test it more thoroughly and declare that the patch is
> useful and it does not break anything, I may apply it.

Out of curiosity why did you base it on 2.17?  This lacks 50 commits
that were done before the switch to GPLv3.  I can understand one
might feel uncomfortable using a random CVS revision, I would feel
so :)


Laurent

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH, RFT] Update i386-dis.c from binutils 2.17

[Alexander Graf]

On 29.10.2008, at 17:52, Laurent Desnogues wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>>
>> This very lightly tested patch updates i386-dis.c from binutils 2.17.
>> If someone can test it more thoroughly and declare that the patch is
>> useful and it does not break anything, I may apply it.
>
> Out of curiosity why did you base it on 2.17?  This lacks 50 commits
> that were done before the switch to GPLv3.  I can understand one
> might feel uncomfortable using a random CVS revision, I would feel
> so :)

Can't we just ask the binutils committers after that commit if they'd  
agree to license their work under GPLv2+, including an explanation why  
we're having a problem here?

Just wondering - sorry if there already is a discussion going on with  
these guys that I didn't catch.

Alex

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH, RFT] Update i386-dis.c from binutils 2.17

[Blue Swirl]

On 10/29/08, Laurent Desnogues <laurent.desnogues@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >
>  > This very lightly tested patch updates i386-dis.c from binutils 2.17.
>  > If someone can test it more thoroughly and declare that the patch is
>  > useful and it does not break anything, I may apply it.
>
>
> Out of curiosity why did you base it on 2.17?  This lacks 50 commits
>  that were done before the switch to GPLv3.  I can understand one
>  might feel uncomfortable using a random CVS revision, I would feel
>  so :)

Laziness, I already had 2.17 at hand. If the patch proves useless, not
too much time have been wasted.

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH, RFT] Update i386-dis.c from binutils 2.17

[Laurent Desnogues]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This very lightly tested patch updates i386-dis.c from binutils 2.17.
> If someone can test it more thoroughly and declare that the patch is
> useful and it does not break anything, I may apply it.

I made a quick run on x86_64 and the only difference in the trace
was the replacement of:

  mov    %rdx,(%r12)

to:

  mov    %rdx,(%r12,1)

I guess the extra 1 is a scaling factor that was previously omitted
(and which might be needed to distinguish two instructions that
have different object code).

Of course, my test doesn't mean the patch broke nothing, but it's
better than no test :-)


Laurent