From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47627) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VbqiQ-0007DD-7q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:47:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VbqiO-0002Iw-Uv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:47:06 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]:37431) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VbqiO-0002If-O1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:47:04 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id cb5so7679050wib.2 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 04:47:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <527026FA.4070108@macke.de> References: <1383073495-5332-1-git-send-email-sebastian@macke.de> <527026FA.4070108@macke.de> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:47:02 +0800 Message-ID: From: Jia Liu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/13] target-openrisc: More optimizations and corrections List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Sebastian Macke Cc: Peter Maydell , openrisc , qemu-devel , Max Filippov , "openrisc@lists.opencores.org" , Richard Henderson Hi Sebastian, On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Sebastian Macke wrote: > On 29/10/2013 2:15 PM, Max Filippov wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Sebastian Macke >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This is the second part of the patches to make the openrisc target faster >>> and more reliable. >> >> Hi Sebastian, >> >> this series doesn't apply cleanly to the current qemu git head, >> what tree is it based on? >> > > It is based on the current master tree but depends on the patches I send on > the 21st October. > They got accepted by the maintainer but are not in the master tree right > now. Your previous patch set separate SR is a little different from Arch spec, you said it will speed up some instructions, I think maybe it is a good reason and acceptable. But this one, going a little more too far, maybe you should consider on the comment from Max, Peter and Richard. More people comment your patch, make your code more better :) Regards, Jia