From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc3zY-0006Hy-S3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:53:40 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc3zW-0006Hc-BG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:53:39 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc3zW-0006HZ-6w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:53:38 -0400 Received: from [12.7.175.14] (helo=mx2.palmsource.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Gc3zW-0001Ou-3g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:53:38 -0400 Message-ID: <453D0196.3030002@palmsource.com> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:53:26 -0700 From: "K. Richard Pixley" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4 References: <45391B22.1050608@palmsource.com> <200610222127.08346.rob@landley.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080509030809010203030503" Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080509030809010203030503 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Rob Landley wrote: > >> Basically, gcc changed in a way that broke qemu. >> > Yes, they did. But even if I understand your frustration (which I share), > I also understand the gcc people. After all, using gcc to create the > blocks for dynamic translation is a _hack_. Yes, it is a hack. And short of some guarantees from gcc, (which we don't have), it is destined to be an ongoing issue. > The result of a compiler run, > though, should work and run -- as fast as possible. So basically, the gcc > people want to achieve a different goal from what we misuse their program > for. Creating a qemu variant target for gcc would address both of these concerns. It would introduce new ones, of course, but it would address these two. --rich --------------080509030809010203030503 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Johannes Schindelin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Rob Landley wrote:
  
Basically, gcc changed in a way that broke qemu.
    
Yes, they did. But even if I understand your frustration (which I share), 
I also understand the gcc people. After all, using gcc to create the 
blocks for dynamic translation is a _hack_.
Yes, it is a hack.  And short of some guarantees from gcc, (which we don't have), it is destined to be an ongoing issue.
The result of a compiler run, 
though, should work and run -- as fast as possible. So basically, the gcc 
people want to achieve a different goal from what we misuse their program 
for.
Creating a qemu variant target for gcc would address both of these concerns.  It would introduce new ones, of course, but it would address these two.

--rich
--------------080509030809010203030503--