Em Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 09:25:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:35:58PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote: > > Unlike the perf report interactive annotate mode, the perf annotate > > doesn't display the LBR data.
> > perf record -b ... > > perf annotate function > > It should show IPC/cycle, but it doesn't. > There is far more than IPC/cycle for the LBR data, so this Changelog is > misleading. > Also, I think that this patch goes the wrong way, we should reduce the > divergence of the various modes, not make it worse. Right, Peter, what would you think if I made --stdio use the same routines used to format the TUI, i.e. stdio would be equal to the TUI modulo de navigation/jump arrows, etc. We would have switches to provide the TUI output options that make sense for non-interactive mode, like: J Toggle showing number of jump sources on targets o Toggle disassembler output/simplified view s Toggle source code view t Circulate percent, total period, samples view k Toggle line numbers And would still have e --stdio-classic (deprecated), that we would keep for a while. I think that this new mode with "dissassembler output" would be the same as the current --stdio, I'll check. To further clarify, this wouldn't use any ncurses/slang TUI code, just plain printf with things formatted using what is used now for the TUI mode. This way there would never be any drift amongst the output modes and we would have less work to do when implementing new stuff like this LBR case. What do you think? - Arnaldo