From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HU7Y1-0003Jc-Bw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:36:41 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HU7Xz-0003H6-RC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:36:40 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU7Xz-0003Gu-NX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:36:39 -0500 Received: from farad.aurel32.net ([82.232.2.251] helo=mail.aurel32.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HU7WG-0007rI-Sd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:34:53 -0400 Message-ID: <460196E6.5010507@aurel32.net> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:34:46 +0100 From: Aurelien Jarno MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [SPARC] Branch condition problems References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Blue Swirl a écrit : >>>From my tests, it seems that std in a delayed branch slot occurs a >> hundred of time during a boot, so not a lot. Adding a new field to the >> CPU structure would probably decrease the performances (except on >> hosts with a lot of registers). Therefore I am proposing something like >> that (currently for std only): > > Can you test if this works instead? > The first hunk works well, and is indeed better than my patch. The second hunk applies, but does not compile. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net