Re: RFC: Why dont we move to newer capstone?

[Peter Maydell]

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 11:21, Lucien Murray-Pitts
<address@hidden> wrote:
> 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?

Moving to a newer capstone sounds like a good idea. The only
reason we haven't moved forward as far as I'm aware is that
nobody has done the work to send a patch to do that move
forward to the newer version. Richard Henderson would
probably know if there was any other blocker.

> Furthermore, if making a move why not move to something with wider cpu
> support like libopcodes  ?

Unfortunately as far as I know libopcodes is GPLv3, which is not
compatible with the GPLv2-only code in QEMU. Otherwise it
would be an obvious choice.

thanks
-- PMM