From: "K. Richard Pixley" <rich.pixley@palmsource.com>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:53:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <453D0196.3030002@palmsource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0610230333380.14200@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]
Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Rob Landley wrote:
>
>> Basically, gcc changed in a way that broke qemu.
>>
> Yes, they did. But even if I understand your frustration (which I share),
> I also understand the gcc people. After all, using gcc to create the
> blocks for dynamic translation is a _hack_.
Yes, it is a hack. And short of some guarantees from gcc, (which we
don't have), it is destined to be an ongoing issue.
> The result of a compiler run,
> though, should work and run -- as fast as possible. So basically, the gcc
> people want to achieve a different goal from what we misuse their program
> for.
Creating a qemu variant target for gcc would address both of these
concerns. It would introduce new ones, of course, but it would address
these two.
--rich
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1402 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-10-23 17:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-20 18:53 [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4 K. Richard Pixley
2006-10-22 22:06 ` Johannes Schindelin
2006-10-23 8:16 ` Martin Guy
2006-10-23 12:20 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-23 13:59 ` Avi Kivity
2006-10-23 14:10 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-23 14:28 ` Avi Kivity
2006-10-23 14:31 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-23 14:35 ` Avi Kivity
2006-10-23 17:41 ` K. Richard Pixley
2006-10-23 17:58 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-23 18:04 ` K. Richard Pixley
2006-10-23 18:20 ` Laurent Desnogues
2006-10-23 18:37 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-24 23:39 ` Rob Landley
2006-10-25 0:24 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-25 19:39 ` Rob Landley
2006-10-26 18:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-10-31 16:53 ` Rob Landley
2006-10-31 19:02 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-31 20:41 ` Rob Landley
2006-10-31 22:08 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-31 22:31 ` Laurent Desnogues
2006-10-31 23:00 ` Paul Brook
2006-11-01 0:00 ` Rob Landley
2006-11-01 0:29 ` Paul Brook
2006-11-01 1:51 ` Rob Landley
2006-11-01 3:22 ` Paul Brook
2006-11-01 16:34 ` Rob Landley
2006-11-01 17:01 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-31 23:17 ` Rob Landley
2006-11-01 0:01 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-30 4:35 ` Rob Landley
2006-10-30 14:56 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-30 16:31 ` Rob Landley
2006-10-30 16:50 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-30 22:54 ` Stephen Torri
2006-10-30 23:13 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-23 1:27 ` Rob Landley
2006-10-23 1:44 ` Paul Brook
2006-10-23 1:45 ` Johannes Schindelin
2006-10-23 17:53 ` K. Richard Pixley [this message]
2006-10-23 18:08 ` Rob Landley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=453D0196.3030002@palmsource.com \
--to=rich.pixley@palmsource.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.