From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58129)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas.faerber@web.de>) id 1RCw5l-0007G7-Ti
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:19:10 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas.faerber@web.de>) id 1RCw5k-0002kl-RC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:19:09 -0400
Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de ([217.72.192.227]:58667)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas.faerber@web.de>) id 1RCw5k-0002kc-LD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:19:08 -0400
Message-ID: <4E91C982.2060501@web.de>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:19:14 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= <andreas.faerber@web.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4E74FC29.1050003@mail.berlios.de>
	<1316289634-18786-6-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de>
	<4E8745DE.5030007@web.de> <4E87853B.20308@mail.berlios.de>
In-Reply-To: <4E87853B.20308@mail.berlios.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Sender: andreas.faerber@web.de
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 6/8] tcg: Add bytecode generator for tcg
 interpreter
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Am 01.10.2011 23:25, schrieb Stefan Weil:
> Am 01.10.2011 18:54, schrieb Andreas F=E4rber:
>> Am 17.09.2011 22:00, schrieb Stefan Weil:
>>> +The bytecode consists of opcodes (same numeric values as those used =
by
>>> +TCG), command length and arguments of variable size and number.
>>
>> While reusing TCG opcode values certainly makes things easy to
>> implement, have you evaluated using LLVM bitcode as alternative to a
>> fully custom intermediate code format?
>=20
> I had a look on several bytecode representations - initially I thought
> of using Java. LLVM was on my list, too, but I cannot say that I really
> evaluated any of these alternatives. My primary goal was to learn more
> about TCG and to get something working, and as you said, reusing the
> TCG opcodes made things easier.

Okay, just thought I'd ask the blunt question. :)

We should be careful not to expose it to outside processes as discussed
elsewhere in the thread or we will have to start caring about ABI
versioning.

> LLVM might also be used as a replacement for TCG.
> It would be really interesting to see how both compare.

Maybe suited for a GSoC project?

Andreas