On 2/23/2018 11:29 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
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

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

Hi Arnaldo, looks your idea is very similar as my idea. In my understanding, for example, we may provide switch to tui routine like annotate_browser__write() and use fprintf() to replace ui_browser__printf()/ui_browser_write__xxx() if switch is on for stdio.

Is that your idea?

For this approach, I think, the benefit is we can reuse most of existing code but the disadvantage is we have to mix tui and stdio up.

Jin Yao

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

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

What do you think?

- Arnaldo

Reply via email to