From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DdpqY-0002SO-4i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:34:54 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DdpqW-0002RE-K3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:34:52 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DdpqW-0002Qo-9k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:34:52 -0400
Received: from [65.74.133.9] (helo=mail.codesourcery.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1Ddpp6-0008PJ-Vo
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:33:25 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Hand written code generator #2
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:31:00 +0100
References: <200505311623.28508.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<46d6db6605060203536fd32a71@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <46d6db6605060203536fd32a71@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200506021431.02109.paul@codesourcery.com>
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, Christian MICHON <christian.michon@gmail.com>

On Thursday 02 June 2005 11:53, Christian MICHON wrote:
> Paul,
>
> on mingw32/x86-XP host, I see no difference on benchs with i386-softmmu.
> You mentionned around 30% improvements. Any special compiler flags to
> use, or compiler version?

I also said that the arm-user emulation was the only target that had been
converted enough to benefit from the new code. The optimization passes
only work on the new qops. Existing dyngen based ops are not touched.

On rereading the results I did the math wrong, I actually got a 15% speedup
(2.3 vs. 2.0), but everything else still holds.

To get the latest copy of my code you can do

svn co https://nowt.dyndns.org/svn/qemu/trunk qemu

Or for a diff of just my changes

svn diff https://nowt.dyndns.org/svn/qemu/cvs https://nowt.dyndns.org/svn/qemu/trunk

Paul