On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:13:19 +0000 Nicholas Mc Guire <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 03:40:54PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:54:01PM +0000, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:25:37AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > arch/x86/tools/gen-insn-attr-x86.awk | 12 ++++++++++-- > > > > > tools/objtool/arch/x86/insn/gen-insn-attr-x86.awk | 12 ++++++++++-- > > > > > > > > There's actually a third copy of the decoder in: > > > > > > > > tools/perf/util/intel-pt-decoder/ > > > > > > > > Yes, the duplication is a pain, but it's part of an effort to keep > > > > 'tools/*' source independent from kernel code. > > > > > > > > Maybe we can at least combine the objtool and perf versions someday. > > > > > > > Bad - missed that one - did not build perf - the generator seems to > > > be the same though only differing by a single blank line - so pulling > > > those together should be a non-issue atleast with respect to the > > > generator as the x86-opcode-map.txt are all the same ? ...or what > > > fun am I missing ? > > > > In theory, all three copies of the decoder should be identical. That > > includes all the files: insn.[ch], inat.[ch], inat_types.h, > > gen-insn-attr-x86.awk, x86-opcode-map.txt. > > > Understood - but this is a different problem that is being > addressed with this cleanup - the duplicates make no sense in > any case as far as I can see - with or without consolidation of > the other files (and x86-opcode-map.txt does seem to be the > same in all 3 cases) - the point was that it is causing a quite > large number of coccicheck warnings which are iritating and > in this case easy to remove. Why would you apply coccinelle to auto-generated code? I recommend you to change coccicheck to avoid checking auto-generated code first. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
