From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LRcfI-0003UU-Vr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:22:57 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LRcfG-0003TD-Bx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:22:55 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36147 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LRcfG-0003T5-8y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:22:54 -0500 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:59466) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LRcfF-0001IG-Uf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:22:54 -0500 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n0R1LGCO011258 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:21:16 -0500 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id n0R1MqYH196850 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:22:52 -0500 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n0R1MpPj011663 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:22:51 -0500 Message-ID: <497E61DE.2080802@us.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:22:38 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Enabled building of x86_64 code on Mac OS X References: <1232826287-18542-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <200901270034.04844.paul@codesourcery.com> <20090127004232.GE9296@shareable.org> <200901270059.21958.paul@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200901270059.21958.paul@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: Paul Brook Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Paul Brook wrote: > I did say overall performance. > My experience with AMD hardware is that you generally get ~10% overall > improvement from LP64. Intel hardware (particularly the early 64-bit cores) > less so, but it's generally still a win. > > I guess ILP32 long mode would probably increase that further, and avoid the > odd regressions. It's an awful lot of work to implement though, especially on > a target that isn't used to having lots of incompatible variants. > I expected a performance boost. Since OS X only runs on Intel CPUs, I don't think it's dramatically worth it to get a few percent CPU improvement. The reason I asked is that if we decided to drop Cocoa in favor of SDL, it would prevent the use of 64-bit. However, as long as someone is willing to fix Cocoa, I don't think there's any harm keeping it around so it doesn't matter that much. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Paul > >