On Fri, 2016-07-01 at 14:13 +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote: > Thanks Michael for your suggestion. > > On Thursday 30 June 2016 11:51 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 11:44 +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote: > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/annotate.c b/tools/perf/util/annotate.c > > > index 36a5825..b87eac7 100644 > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/annotate.c > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/annotate.c > > > @@ -476,6 +481,125 @@ static int ins__cmp(const void *a, const void *b) > > ... > > > > > > + > > > +static struct ins *ins__find_powerpc(const char *name) > > > +{ > > > + int i; > > > + struct ins *ins; > > > + struct ins_ops *ops; > > > + static struct instructions_powerpc head; > > > + static bool list_initialized; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * - Interested only if instruction starts with 'b'. > > > + * - Few start with 'b', but aren't branch instructions. > > > + * - Let's also ignore instructions involving 'ctr' and > > > + * 'tar' since target branch addresses for those can't > > > + * be determined statically. > > > + */ > > > + if (name[0] != 'b' || > > > + !strncmp(name, "bcd", 3) || > > > + !strncmp(name, "brinc", 5) || > > > + !strncmp(name, "bper", 4) || > > > + strstr(name, "ctr") || > > > + strstr(name, "tar")) > > > + return NULL; > > It would be good if 'bctr' was at least recognised as a branch, even if we > > can't determine the target. They are very common. > We can not show arrow for this since we don't know the target location. > can you please suggest how you intends perf to display bctr? > > bctr can be classified into two variants -- 'bctr' and 'bctrl'. > > 'bctr' will be considered as jump instruction but jump__parse() won't > be able to find any target location and hence it will set target to > UINT64_MAX which transform 'bctr' to 'bctr UINT64_MAX'. This > looks misleading. > > bctrl will be considered as call instruction but call_parse() won't > be able to find any target function and hence it won't show any > navigation arrow for this instruction. Which is same as filter it > beforehand. >
The target location and function are in the counter. Can't we add this to instruction ops? Is it a major change to add it? Balbir Singh. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev