From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41742 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OF6vs-0004wQ-UA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 May 2010 10:41:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OF6vm-0006A3-A8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 May 2010 10:41:08 -0400 Received: from are.twiddle.net ([75.149.56.221]:39414) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OF6vm-00069e-4Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 May 2010 10:41:02 -0400 Message-ID: <4BF549FB.7000208@twiddle.net> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 07:40:59 -0700 From: Richard Henderson MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/22] tcg-i386: Tidy ext8u and ext16u operations. References: <20100519064713.GC25432@ohm.aurel32.net> <4BF42E7F.60008@twiddle.net> <20100520133908.GC18828@hall.aurel32.net> <20100520140428.GA1950@volta.aurel32.net> In-Reply-To: <20100520140428.GA1950@volta.aurel32.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Aurelien Jarno Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 05/20/2010 07:04 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >> Do you have tried to compare the generated code before and after your >> patch? I expect a few cases where your patch has some drawbacks, so I >> don't know if there is a net gain on the size of the translated code. >> > > I have done a quick test on /bin/ls. > | instr | size | > +--------+--------+ > before | 101305 | 344770 | > after | 101258 | 344829 | > > In short a small gain in the number of instructions, and a small loss in > the size of the translated code. That was pretty much the test I would have done. So where are we? Is the patch acceptable as-is, or should I be re-writing it without the constraints change? r~