Em Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:55:21AM -0800, Andi Kleen escreveu: > > Do you know if there is any tool comparing the output of objdump -d to what > > is > > produced by a similar xed based tool? > > I'm not aware of such a tool, but could be written using the "xed" tool > in the xed distribution. However I would trust xed over objdump,
It would go both ways, and I was not implying which one is "better", just checking differences in the output. > it is used widely in Intel tools with likely far more testing > than binutils > > > 4b8506 jz 0x4b84d0 <perf_evsel__enable+0x70> 74 c8 > > je 4b84d0 <perf_evsel__enable+0x70> > > 4b84d0 add $0x1, %r14 > > add $0x1,%r14 > > 4b84d4 cmp %r14d, %ebx > > cmp %r14d,%ebx > > 4b84d7 jle 0x4b8530 <perf_evsel__enable+0xd0> > > jle 4b8530 <perf_evsel__enable+0xd0> > > 4b8530 add $0x1, %r12 > > add $0x1,%r12 > > 4b8534 cmp %r12d, %r13d > > cmp %r12d,%r13d > > 4b8537 jnle 0x4b84c2 <perf_evsel__enable+0x62> 7f 89 > > jg 4b84c2 <perf_evsel__enable+0x62> > > 4b84c2 xor %r14d, %r14d > > xor %r14d,%r14d > > 4b84c5 test %ebx, %ebx > > test %ebx,%ebx > > 4b84c7 jnle 0x4b84d9 <perf_evsel__enable+0x79> 7f 10 > > jg 4b84d9 <perf_evsel__enable+0x79> > > 4b84d9 movq 0x90(%r15), %rax 49 8b 87 90 00 00 00 > > mov 0x90(%r15),%rax > > 4b84e0 mov %r12, %rdx > > mov %r12,%rdx > > 4b84e3 mov %r14, %rcx > > mov %r14,%rcx > > 4b84e6 mov $0x2400, %esi > > mov $0x2400,%esi > > 4b84eb imulq (%rax), %rdx 48 0f af 10 > > imul (%rax),%rdx > > 4b84ef imulq 0x8(%rax), %rcx 48 0f af 48 08 > > imul 0x8(%rax),%rcx > > 4b84f4 add %rdx, %rax > > add %rdx,%rax > > 4b84f7 xor %edx, %edx > > xor %edx,%edx > > 4b84f9 movl 0x18(%rcx,%rax,1), %edi 8b 7c 01 18 > > mov 0x18(%rcx,%rax,1),%edi > > 4b84fd xor %eax, %eax > > xor %eax,%eax > > 4b84ff callq 0x42d990 <ioctl@plt> > > callq 42d990 <ioctl@plt> > > 4b8504 test %eax, %eax > > test %eax,%eax > > 4b8506 jz 0x4b84d0 <perf_evsel__enable+0x70> 74 c8 > > je 4b84d0 <perf_evsel__enable+0x70> > > Yes all the differences are ok. It's just synonyms of the instructions. > > -Andi
