From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JFVuw-0007RH-6B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:40:30 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JFVut-0007Qa-My for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:40:29 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFVut-0007QT-9v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:40:27 -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 1JFVus-0006Vz-LJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:40:26 -0500 Message-ID: <478F68D9.7030808@csgraf.de> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:40:25 +0100 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] Add a PowerPC branch detector References: <478EF8E3.2050503@csgraf.de> <20080117132253.GE9767@networkno.de> <478F2451.4090301@csgraf.de> <20080117140759.GA28842@networkno.de> <20080117143813.GB28842@networkno.de> In-Reply-To: <20080117143813.GB28842@networkno.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Thiemo Seufer Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Thiemo Seufer wrote: >> >> >>> Alexander Graf wrote: >>> [snip] >>> >>>>> Is check_ops.sh not enough for debugging micro-ops? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Basically it should be. PowerPC branching can be (regex) b..rl. Honestly >>>> I did not know about this script though and as it was not in the >>>> makefile, it did not tell me that something wrong was going on. This >>>> check costs near no time and has to be passed in order to build >>>> successfully. >>>> >>>> So either check_ops should be fixed (not only brl) and put into the >>>> Makefile.target or a check like this is good to have. >>>> >>> Fixing check_ops is IMO preferable, OTOH I hope the whole problem goes >>> away with the new code generator which is in the works. >>> >> The code generated by that new code generator is substantially slower than >> what we have right now, so I am not so enthusiastic. >> > > I meant not qops but something Fabrice is working on. Which apparently has > about the same speed. > > Either way I wouldn't mind having a working gcc4 version for the time being, including checks that it doesn't break too easily again. Alex