From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LUVfv-0000Ce-Dz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:31:31 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LUVfq-0000CS-Sb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:31:30 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59695 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LUVfq-0000CP-P3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:31:26 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:63142) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LUVfq-0005sC-9n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:31:26 -0500 Received: from zps77.corp.google.com (zps77.corp.google.com [172.25.146.77]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n140VOGQ017226 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:31:24 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rvbg9.prod.google.com [10.140.83.9]) by zps77.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n140VMME007750 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:31:22 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id g9so1611691rvb.4 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:31:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <761ea48b0902031335t71922b13ne2a22baa38318698@mail.gmail.com> References: <4988AD96.6090308@codemonkey.ws> <5d6222a80902031258m59691fach7077f516f9b078df@mail.gmail.com> <761ea48b0902031335t71922b13ne2a22baa38318698@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:31:21 +0100 Message-ID: <60cad3f0902031631k680ac731u92f8d3ae1c853e25@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Cutting a new QEMU release From: David Turner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd29bf038d55c04620ce887 Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org --000e0cd29bf038d55c04620ce887 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Laurent Desnogues < laurent.desnogues@gmail.com> wrote: > > For instance someone (Andzrej?) mentionned ARM in system mode is half > slower than it was before TCG. Also the ARM target needs some fixing. > I have integrated the TCG ARM backend in the Android emulator, and my measurements show an improvement in performance, when running various Android performance tests, between x1.10 and x1.90 compared to the old dyngen based translator. To be honest, the improvements are not consistent, there are a few rare tests that run at x0.89, but they're not critical to me). Note that the TCG binary is compiled with GCC 4.2, while the old one was built with GCC 3.3 (fo rthe usual ugly dyngen reasons). This is only when comparing the same ARMv5 binaries, but it sounds good enough for me. An official release would be very welcomed at this point. The amount of changes since the last one has been dramatic. Morever, this will allow everyone to reset the clock on their forks and more easily share patches with upstream. Just my 2 cents > > Perhaps doing at least one release candidate to get feedback (and focus on > fixing reported bugs) would be appropriate. > > Cheers, > > Laurent > > > --000e0cd29bf038d55c04620ce887 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Laurent= Desnogues <laurent.desnogues@gmail.com> wrote:

For instance someone (Andzrej?) mentionned  ARM in system mode is half=
slower than it was before TCG.  Also the ARM target needs some fixing.=

I have integrated the TCG ARM backend in the Android = emulator, and my measurements
show an improvement in performance, when r= unning various Android performance tests,
between x1.10 and x1.90 compar= ed to the old dyngen based translator. To be honest,
the improvements are not consistent, there are a few rare tests
that run= at x0.89, but they're not critical to me).

Note that the TCG bi= nary is compiled with GCC 4.2, while the old one was built with
GCC 3.3 = (fo rthe usual ugly dyngen reasons).

This is only when comparing the same ARMv5 binaries, but it sounds good= enough for me.

An official release would be very welcomed at this p= oint. The amount of changes since
the last one has been dramatic. Moreve= r, this will allow everyone to reset the clock on
their forks and more easily share patches with upstream.

Just my 2 c= ents
 

Perhaps doing at least one release candidate to get feedback (and focus on<= br> fixing reported bugs) would be appropriate.

Cheers,

Laurent



--000e0cd29bf038d55c04620ce887--