From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46510)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aurelien@aurel32.net>) id 1Rjh0F-0004b6-4f
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:52:52 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aurelien@aurel32.net>) id 1Rjh0E-0001Xd-2K
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:52:51 -0500
Received: from hall.aurel32.net ([88.191.126.93]:42079)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aurelien@aurel32.net>) id 1Rjh0D-0001XS-RU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:52:50 -0500
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 01:52:47 +0100
From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Message-ID: <20120108005247.GA20125@hall.aurel32.net>
References: <CAAu8pHvF4sCMi2prP3z+Ri+M0aC0fX1_Wu_HdP0ivAmErSRPig@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAu8pHvF4sCMi2prP3z+Ri+M0aC0fX1_Wu_HdP0ivAmErSRPig@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] AREG0 patches v4
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 10:24:09PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> In this version, I made basic AREG0 free load/store implementations
> for all targets. Only x86-64 is tested, others have probably problems,
> especially 64 bit guest (Sparc64 in this case) on 32 bit hosts.
> 
> I think this should be committed as a starting point if there are no
> major objections.
> 

If it is known to be broken on 32-bit hosts, I am not sure it's really
a good idea to commit these patches. It's just going to prevent all
people developing on x86 to continue testing or developing QEMU.

Also I have to say I still don't get the goal of these patch series. I
have just tried it on an x86-64 guest with a 32-bit sparc guest. It
works well, but the generated TB are slightly bigger. I have done a
quick and dirty performance test by compiling some code inside the
guests, and I get a slow down of about 0.6%, though for this kind of
performance changes, it should probably done with other methods.

Is there another goal behind this patch series beside performance?

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