[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?
From: |
Lucien Murray-Pitts |
Subject: |
RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone? |
Date: |
Sat, 5 Oct 2019 19:20:41 +0900 |
Hi folks,
Whilst working on a m68k patch I noticed that the capstone in use
today (3.0) doesnt support the M68K and thus a hand turned disasm
function is used.
The newer capstone (5.0) appears to support a few more CPU, inc. m68k.
Why we move to this newer capstone?
Furthermore, if making a move why not move to something with wider cpu
support like libopcodes ?
Cheers,
Luc
- RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?, Lucien Murray-Pitts, 2019/10/05
- RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?,
Lucien Murray-Pitts <=
- Re: RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?, Peter Maydell, 2019/10/05
- Re: RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2019/10/15
- Re: RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?, Thomas Huth, 2019/10/15
- Re: RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2019/10/15
- Re: RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?, Marc-André Lureau, 2019/10/15
- Re: RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2019/10/15
- Re: RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?, Peter Maydell, 2019/10/15
- Re: RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2019/10/15
Re: RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?, Richard Henderson, 2019/10/14