From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JEogB-0007a7-Ud for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:30:23 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JEog8-0007Zb-6k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:30:23 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEog7-0007ZY-Vu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:30:20 -0500 Received: from kassel160.server4you.de ([62.75.246.160] helo=csgraf.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JEog7-0004OA-NJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:30:19 -0500 Received: from [10.10.101.155] (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.2]) by csgraf.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6CB442F for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:30:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <478CE001.4000907@csgraf.de> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:32:01 +0100 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] OSX x86_32 host support References: <7BE93927-F16C-4CA5-86DC-F17955A0A67C@kberg.ch> <20080115131359.GC11941@shareable.org> In-Reply-To: <20080115131359.GC11941@shareable.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Jamie Lokier wrote: > Alexander Graf wrote: > >> I believe the 5% performance hit >> that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be using >> x86_64 nowadays anyway. >> > > *Boggle*! x86_64 is only a few years old, and cheap low-power x86_64 > laptops are relatively recent. > > -- Jamie > > So you really want to do dynamic retranslation on ancient hardware? To me emulated systems already feel slow on really recent machines, I don't want to go back to something even slower. If you use kqemu there even is near no performance hit at all, which I believe is the main use of qemu on i386 anyway. Furthermore x86_64 is _way_ faster, as it provides a lot more registers. I think the benefit you get from cutting the gcc3 dependency is way more important than a major performance hit that people will usually only see on the next release of qemu, by which time things have shifted towards x86_64 even more. Regards, Alex