From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1BsT8H-0001iZ-6s
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:17:09 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1BsT8F-0001iN-OD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:17:08 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BsT8F-0001iK-L3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:17:07 -0400
Received: from [64.233.170.207] (helo=mproxy.gmail.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BsT4b-0006Pq-N8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:13:21 -0400
Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 74so428417rnk
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2ad73a040804141359052b1a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 18:13:21 -0300
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Braga?= <meianoite@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Performances on Mac OS X
In-Reply-To: <41114D7E.7090201@bellard.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <000001c47a53$fc072f20$8cdb71d5@msgrus.se>
	<41114D7E.7090201@bellard.org>
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

Still, there are the graphic routines (which are *painfully slow* when
it goes to VESA mode; console is rather zippy!) and I'm positive the
compiler can optimize FP instructions with SSE or something and/or
reorder/reschedule/etc the instructions in order to ameliorate cache
hits and whatnot.

I still believe it's not a complete waste of time.

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 22:56:30 +0200, 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.
> 
> Fabrice.
> 


-- 
"A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God"
Alan J. Perlis