From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49517) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TE51b-000838-6B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:08:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TE51Z-0002r9-Sr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:08:07 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35230 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TE51Z-0002qx-M2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:08:05 -0400 Message-ID: <5058E2B2.9000100@suse.de> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:08:02 +0200 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1347224784-19472-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net> In-Reply-To: <1347224784-19472-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 000/126] Rewrite s390x translator List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 09/09/2012 11:04 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > As promised the other week. I've cleaned up the patch set and > re-based it on Blueswirl's areg0 patch set. For reference, the > entire patch set is available at > > git://repo.or.cz/qemu/rth.git rth/s390-reorg-3 > > Testing has mostly been on the gcc testsuite, where the execute > test failures are reduced to > > FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-1.c execution test > FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-3.c execution test > FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-4.c execution test > FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-5.c execution test > FAIL: gcc.dg/cdce1.c execution test > FAIL: gcc.dg/cleanup-11.c execution test > FAIL: gcc.dg/cleanup-9.c execution test > FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr41094.c -O0 execution test > FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/tls/tls-test.c * execution test > > I'll probably start trying out the glibc testsuite next, as > that's quite likely to flush out remaining problems with the > fp support (both cdce1 and pr41094 are both failures in pow). > > I've also done some testing with -march={z10,z196}, but I > don't have those results handy atm. So I've had a look at the patch set. Overall it looks ok. I have to admit that I found the old code a lot easier to understand and read. But if you want to keep maintaining it the new way, I'm definitely ok with that as well :). There's one thing I would really like to see first though: Performance numbers. Could you please try and compare the old code with your new code performance wise? How do small linux-user programs compare? How does a full Linux boot compare? Alex