Re: [Capstone-users] AARch64 details

[David C. <dca...@fb...>]

Thanks Q. I did notice how the jump groups are set.
For my application, I wanted “RET” ->  RETURN group and “BL/BLR” -> “Call Group” as well. I replaced the dynamic jump handling with static elaboration. I modified the code to update AArch64Mapping.c and include/arm64.h
Are you interested in these changes?

—david

From: Nguyen Anh Quynh <aq...@gm...<mailto:aq...@gm...>>
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 9:16 PM
To: "Capstone disassembly framework (www.capstone-engine.org)" <cap...@li...<mailto:cap...@li...>>
Cc: David Callahan <dca...@fb...<mailto:dca...@fb...>>
Subject: Re: [Capstone-users] AARch64 details



On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Nguyen Anh Quynh <aq...@gm...<mailto:aq...@gm...>> wrote:


On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Nguyen Anh Quynh <aq...@gm...<mailto:aq...@gm...>> wrote:

That must be a bug. Please fix what you see wrong, then send the Pull Request on Github.

Do remember to base your work on the "next" branch.

Thanks.

On Feb 21, 2015 9:06 AM, "David Callahan" <dca...@fb...<mailto:dca...@fb...>> wrote:

Hello,

I picked up capstone to work on rewriting project targeting arm & arm64. It appears that the details information for AArch64 is quite incomplete, for example the B branch instruction is marked as a branch but BL is not and neither is shown in any sort of “JUMP” group.   What is the status and short term expectations for these kinds of details?

i forgot this detail: JUMP group is handled dynamically at run-time, so you are actually not missing it at the output of cs_disasm()

see function AArch64_get_insn_id() in AArch64Mapping.c for more detail.

so what you reported is not a bug.

thanks.
Q