From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Ch0iU-0002cx-HC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:15:26 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Ch0iT-0002cQ-A2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:15:25 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Ch0iT-0002cJ-3j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:15:25 -0500 Received: from [211.29.132.197] (helo=mail16.syd.optusnet.com.au) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1Ch0OI-00068w-51 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:54:34 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.254] (d220-236-215-100.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.236.215.100]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail16.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBM6sQhm002307 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:54:29 +1100 Message-ID: <41C91A4C.3030602@optusnet.com.au> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:55:08 +0000 From: Darrin Ritter MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu on Fedora Core 3 (Linux 2.6.9+), glibc-2.3.3 References: <41C50D64.7070209@BitWagon.com> <41e41e7a04121902033c7a42ee@mail.gmail.com> <41C58841.4060008@BitWagon.com> <41C604F0.30601@bellard.org> <41C622B0.8040903@BitWagon.com> <41C6F44A.7060408@BitWagon.com> In-Reply-To: <41C6F44A.7060408@BitWagon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org where can I d/l the source code with this patch as I am having problems running qemu on FC3 DV John Reiser wrote: >> silly question: why don't you use inline assembly to make those two >> functions? >> > > The calls are not execution-time critical (fewer than 10 calls). > They are complexity, platform, and developer-time critical. > More time will be spent by developers and future maintainers > than the total machine cycles spent executing the code, > over all the machines in the world, ever. So making the > developer+maintainer tasks simple and quick is more important > than cycle- or byte-efficiency. >