From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LkFrn-0005pV-JV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:52:51 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LkFri-0005lW-Vp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:52:51 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60594 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LkFri-0005lQ-Qj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:52:46 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:36265)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1LkFri-0003pK-BG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:52:46 -0400
Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26])
	by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2JAqh1a025259
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:52:45 -0400
Message-ID: <49C223F9.8030505@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:52:41 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: branches are expensive
References: <gpo05k$6u4$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<49BF8A5B.7070706@siemens.com>	<gpo56s$o1f$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<200903171251.41148.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<gpt5ht$utu$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <gpt5ht$utu$1@ger.gmane.org>
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: <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

Steffen Liebergeld wrote:
> I've tested Qemu 0.10.0 and with i386-softmmu on a i386 host I get the
> following numbers:
> direct jump count 70%, 2 jumps 54%
>
> For qemu-system-arm on an ARM host, the numbers look like this:
> direct jump count 47%, 2 jumps 40%
>
> For completeness I tested qemu-system-arm on a i386 host as well:
> direct jump count 44%, 2 jumps 37%
>
> So it looks like the chaining on ARM targets is not as effective as on i386
> targets (regardless of the guest, I used the same guest setup, compiled for
> different architectures, on all tests). Do you have any ideas why this is the
> case?
>   

I'd guess that predicated instructions are heavily used on ARM for 
if/else sequences, so intra-page branches would be less frequent.


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function