From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DdqJO-0002CT-Fr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:04:42 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DdqJO-0002CE-3t
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:04:42 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DdqHh-0001Wl-SR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:02:58 -0400
Received: from [64.233.184.199] (helo=wproxy.gmail.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DdpvX-0000Pm-Aa
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:40:03 -0400
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so1040604wra
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <46d6db660506020636524076a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 15:36:53 +0200
From: Christian MICHON <christian.michon@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Hand written code generator #2
In-Reply-To: <200506021431.02109.paul@codesourcery.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200505311623.28508.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<46d6db6605060203536fd32a71@mail.gmail.com>
	<200506021431.02109.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: Christian MICHON <christian.michon@gmail.com>, 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

"Arm is still the only target that really takes advantage of any of
the new functionality."
Sorry I missed this line :(

I hope you will still consider x86 target before x86-64. You'd get a broade=
r
audience for testing/debug.

If so, let us know. I haven't switched to svn yet...

Thanks anyway
Christian

On 6/2/05, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> I also said that the arm-user emulation was the only target that had been
> converted enough to benefit from the new code. The optimization passes
> only work on the new qops. Existing dyngen based ops are not touched.
>=20
> On rereading the results I did the math wrong, I actually got a 15% speed=
up
> (2.3 vs. 2.0), but everything else still holds.
>