From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LgLcH-0004yv-FJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:12:41 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LgLcG-0004yV-St for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:12:41 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40037 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LgLcG-0004yP-Ly for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:12:40 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:18130) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LgLcG-0000VH-8M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:12:40 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e21so716822fga.8 for ; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:12:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <49B3EB80.6080901@web.de> References: <49B3D904.2090202@web.de> <761ea48b0903080803l7e481a96p4511076b7f69305a@mail.gmail.com> <49B3E5F3.3000209@web.de> <761ea48b0903080846p6a0c0bfcoc96dd2f37490dde0@mail.gmail.com> <49B3EB80.6080901@web.de> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:12:39 +0100 Message-ID: <761ea48b0903080912y49fdecd1g124f01a475c6243d@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: dyngen-exec.h cleanup From: Laurent Desnogues Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Laurent Desnogues wrote: [...] >> Yes, and I did the work for ARM. However when considering the >> removal of AREG0, and after looking at generated code, I came >> to the perhaps premature conclusion that removing it would not >> bring me any speedup (at least for a not so register starved >> target as x86_64). > > I don't think we are looking for speedup here, just for cleanup. Status > quo regarding performance after a conversion would be more than fine IMHO. I was ambiguous, I meant I expect slowdowns... But given how many times I was wrong in the past when I thought some tricks would speedup things, I should probably not trust my a priori. >> Well dyngen-exec.h is long gone in my sources even though >> AREG0 is still used. I would have to backtrack my changes to >> see how I arrived to that, but for sure the first thing to do is to >> remove cpu_T from ARM target. > > Yes, please share your wisdom! Sorry if I sounded arrogant, I just wanted to highlight the fact one can achieve your aim. As far as sharing goes, that's another story. Laurent