From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HUXmQ-0001rs-US for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:37:18 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HUXmP-0001r3-CD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:37:18 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUXmP-0001qz-4r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:37:17 -0500 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HUXkY-0007j7-3u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:35:22 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: This project needs a stable branch Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:35:16 +0000 References: <200703151111.04453.jseward@acm.org> <200703222327.47558.paul@codesourcery.com> <200703222357.55469.jseward@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <200703222357.55469.jseward@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703230035.17855.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Julian Seward Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:57, Julian Seward wrote: > On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:27, Paul Brook wrote: > > > Do you mean you're asking me to break up Paul Brook's QOPS tree at > > > https://nowt.dyndns.org and submit it to mainline? I can do this > > > thing, if you really think it would help. > > > > If you implement all the missing bits in the process it'll help ;-) > > What bits would they be then? The m68k target is the only one that uses qops for all its code generation. Arm is about half-and-half, x86 has the easy bits converted, and the other targets still use dyngen pretty much exclusively. amd64 host support is fairly good, x86 hosts mostly work, and ppc has bitrotted a bit. > FWIW, I snarfed the patch last Sunday and tested it on amd64 host / > x86 guest, and successfully booted a couple of linux distros. So it's > not obviously broken, at least for my mundane host/guest choice. > It also seemed marginally slower on a big compile in the guest - > 395.4 host cpu seconds for mainline vs 422.9 with qops. Is this > expected? Yes. The generated code should run at similar speed, but doing the translation takes a bit longer. I've been seeing 10-20% slowdown for booting linux. Paul