From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AsiyR-00045W-DN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:39:47 -0500 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Asiwb-0003T9-5y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:38:24 -0500 Received: from [199.232.41.8] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1Asiul-0002YV-Nh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:35:59 -0500 Received: from [213.41.78.209] (helo=smtp-ft6.fr.colt.net) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Asin1-0005j7-2J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:27:59 -0500 Received: from alcor.imaginet.fr (alcor.imaginet.fr [195.68.86.12]) by smtp-ft6.fr.colt.net with ESMTP id i1GDRlL25808 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:27:47 +0100 Received: from gw.netgem.com ([195.68.2.34]:62693 helo=free.fr) by alcor.imaginet.fr with esmtp (Exim) id 1Asiow-0002Gc-9C for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:29:58 +0100 Message-ID: <4030C5D5.4000008@free.fr> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:29:57 +0100 From: Fabrice Bellard MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu simple user mode testing (arm, ppc, sparc) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Interesting ! I thought that SPARC was the less stable target (I left some register window exception problems in it)... I think the problems on ARM are related to FPU emulation as it is not implemented yet (but I have a pending patch to merge). ARM and x86 use direct translated block chaining while it is not implemented yet on SPARC and PowerPC, so it explains the performances you get. Can you send me (or make available somewhere) at least the static executables ? If you send the dynamic ones, try to add all the relevant dynamic libraries. Fabrice. Karel Gardas wrote: > Hello, > > I have performed simple testing of qemu-0.5.2 (vide also my last email > about ARM emulation issues). I have used these tests: > > 1) C++ hello world example using iostreams > 2) C++ hello world example using C stdio > 3) C hello world example using C stdio > 4) bogomips test > > Tests 1-3 were tested in two versions, one linked dynamically and one > staticaly. > > The results are (grouped by qemu-) > > qemu-arm: > > 1) stat: failed > dyn: failed > 2) stat: run > dyn: failed > 3) stat: run > dyn: failed > 4) run (160 BogoMIPS -- very good!) > > qemu-ppc: > > 1) stat: failed > dyn: failed (qemu segfaults) > 2) stats: run > dyn: failed (qemu segfaults) > 3) stat: run > dyn: run > 4) run (40 BogoMIPS) > > qemu-sparc: > > 1) stat: run > dyn: run > 2) stat: run > dyn: run > 3) stat: run > dyn: run > 4) run (38 BogoMIPS) > > > Where it is not mentioned, binary failed with segfault, where is mentioned > ``qemu segfaults'', QEMU segfaults directly. > > My question is: is there anybody improving QEMU ARM support? Anyway, at > least sparc results looks very good, so I will probably try to test > qemu-sparc with some not so simple C++ application. Also is there anybody > here working on MIPS (mips32) support? > > Thanks, > > Karel > -- > Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com > ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Qemu-devel mailing list > Qemu-devel@nongnu.org > http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel > >