Laurent Desnogues wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de> wrote:
>> Laurent Desnogues wrote:
> [...]
>>> Yes, and I did the work for ARM.  However when considering the
>>> removal of AREG0, and after looking at generated code, I came
>>> to the perhaps premature conclusion that removing it would not
>>> bring me any speedup (at least for a not so register starved
>>> target as x86_64).
>> I don't think we are looking for speedup here, just for cleanup. Status
>> quo regarding performance after a conversion would be more than fine IMHO.
> 
> I was ambiguous, I meant I expect slowdowns...  But given how many
> times I was wrong in the past when I thought some tricks would
> speedup things, I should probably not trust my a priori.
> 
>>> Well dyngen-exec.h is long gone in my sources even though
>>> AREG0 is still used.  I would have to backtrack my changes to
>>> see how I arrived to that, but for sure the first thing to do is to
>>> remove cpu_T from ARM target.
>> Yes, please share your wisdom!
> 
> Sorry if I sounded arrogant, I just wanted to highlight the fact one
> can achieve your aim.  As far as sharing goes, that's another
> story.

No, no, you didn't sound arrogant. I just forgot your boundary conditions.

But it's good to know that there might be a way to overcome
dyngen-exec.h without dropping AREGs altogether in case performance
requires this.

Jan