From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1Bvb1X-0004pK-T4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:19:07 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1Bvb1W-0004oD-9p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:19:07 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bvb1W-0004o4-6i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:19:06 -0400
Received: from [65.199.107.5] (helo=web.dslmyway.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BvaxV-0004NQ-VZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:14:58 -0400
Received: from fred.soliddesign.net (fred.soliddesign.net [10.2.3.220])
	by dash.soliddesign.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549F95751D
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:14:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Performances on Mac OS X
From: Joe Batt <Joe@soliddesign.net>
In-Reply-To: <p06020400bd42441b6675@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <000001c47a53$fc072f20$8cdb71d5@msgrus.se>
	<41114D7E.7090201@bellard.org>  <p06020400bd42441b6675@[192.168.0.2]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1092399294.25340.3.camel@fred.soliddesign.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:14:54 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 05:17, Joshua Root wrote:
> Fabrice Bellard <fabrice@bellard.org> wrote:
> >Don't spend your time in using another compiler than gcc : most of 
> >the time is spent in the generated code, and the quality of this 
> >code relies on very small functions which are too simple for being 
> >optimized better.
> 
> What if more than one instruction worth of C were chained together 
> before being compiled? Would that make more optimisable code? Could 
> this even be done at runtime? Translation time would be greatly 
> increased of course, making caching even more important.

This sounds like HotSpot for qemu.  Within qemu, how much work would it
take to retranslate after profiling execution, like HotSpot server
does?  I've looked a bit, but I get lost  in all the macros.  Where
would someone start looking to understand the translation process?

Where would one look to start on SMP support both for the guest and the
host?

Joe