From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41146 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OCOuj-0008W1-C3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 May 2010 23:16:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OCNjo-0005aW-IQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 May 2010 22:01:26 -0400 Received: from mail-gw0-f45.google.com ([74.125.83.45]:48291) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OCNjo-0005aH-Fq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 May 2010 22:01:24 -0400 Received: by gwj17 with SMTP id 17so411730gwj.4 for ; Wed, 12 May 2010 19:01:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4AC0E93A.6010605@mail.berlios.de> References: <4AC0E93A.6010605@mail.berlios.de> From: Jun Koi Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 11:01:03 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] tcg/interpreter: Add TCG + interpreter for bytecode (virtual machine) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Weil Cc: QEMU Developers On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Stefan Weil wrote: > Hello > > The patch following this mail adds a new code generator > to qemu. It includes a README file with more details. > > Comments and contributions to complete it are welcome. Could you compare the performance of TCG and TCI? I suppose that TCG is still faster, but by how much? (I know TCI still needs a lot of optimization, but lets compare TCG and TCI with assumption that TCI is already matured) Thanks, J