From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40855 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OFApA-0007do-Fz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 May 2010 14:50:34 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <aurelien@aurel32.net>) id 1OFAp8-0001hz-4C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 May 2010 14:50:28 -0400
Received: from hall.aurel32.net ([88.191.82.174]:41333)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <aurelien@aurel32.net>) id 1OFAp7-0001hf-UZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 May 2010 14:50:26 -0400
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 20:50:24 +0200
From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/22] tcg-i386: Tidy ext8u and ext16u
	operations.
Message-ID: <20100520185024.GF20912@hall.aurel32.net>
References: <cover.1272479073.git.rth@twiddle.net>
	<d3bd14117b5ecc639dcad07f997c86581cc03bf8.1272479073.git.rth@twiddle.net>
	<20100519064713.GC25432@ohm.aurel32.net>
	<4BF42E7F.60008@twiddle.net>
	<20100520133908.GC18828@hall.aurel32.net>
	<20100520140428.GA1950@volta.aurel32.net>
	<4BF549FB.7000208@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4BF549FB.7000208@twiddle.net>
Sender: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 07:40:59AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 07:04 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> Do you have tried to compare the generated code before and after your
> >> patch? I expect a few cases where your patch has some drawbacks, so I
> >> don't know if there is a net gain on the size of the translated code.
> >>
> > 
> > I have done a quick test on /bin/ls. 
> >        |  instr |  size  |
> >        +--------+--------+
> > before | 101305 | 344770 |
> > after  | 101258 | 344829 |
> > 
> > In short a small gain in the number of instructions, and a small loss in
> > the size of the translated code.
> 
> That was pretty much the test I would have done.
> 
> So where are we?  Is the patch acceptable as-is, or should I be
> re-writing it without the constraints change?
> 

Given the tests do not show a real improvement and given that it
complexify the code generation, I don't think we should have such a
patch. Could you please rewrite it without the constraints change?


-- 
Aurelien Jarno	                        GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net