From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48715) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZpSC-0008Dv-9x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 17:29:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZpSA-0002fO-OH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 17:29:44 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com ([209.85.217.179]:39714) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZpSA-0002fE-Gc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 17:29:42 -0400 Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id d10so1241375lbj.38 for ; Tue, 07 May 2013 14:29:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8661yvqasu.fsf@shell.gmplib.org> References: <8661yvqasu.fsf@shell.gmplib.org> From: Artyom Tarasenko Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 23:29:20 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Reporting Heisenbugs in qemu List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Torbjorn Granlund Cc: qemu-devel On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Torbjorn Granlund wrote: > The 2nd table of http://gmplib.org/devel/testsystems.html shows all > emulated systems I am using, most of which are qemu-based. Do I read it correct that qemu-system-ppc64 with the slowdown factor of 33 is ~3 times faster than qemu-system-sparc64 with the slowdown factor of 96 ? Do they both use Debian Wheezy guest? You have a remark that ppc64 has problems with its clock. Was it taken into account when the slowdown factors were calculated? Artyom -- Regards, Artyom Tarasenko linux/sparc and solaris/sparc under qemu blog: http://tyom.blogspot.com/search/label/qemu