From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IQnFq-0005dU-VB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:52:27 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IQnFp-0005bN-68
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:52:26 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IQnFp-0005bF-2y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:52:25 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15] helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <matz@suse.de>) id 1IQnFo-0007Xz-8t
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:52:24 -0400
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:52:19 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [patch] make qemu work with GCC 4
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708291842500.23011@wotan.suse.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708301849180.23011@wotan.suse.de>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708282124590.23011@wotan.suse.de>
	<200708291606.14173.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0708291842500.23011@wotan.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>

Hi,

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Michael Matz wrote:

> > >        I solved that by placing one of the T[012] operands into memory
> > >        for HOST_I386, thereby freeing one reg.  Here's some justification
> > >        of why that doesn't really cost performance: with three free regs
> > >        GCC is already spilling like mad in the snippets, we just trade one
> > >        of those memory accesses (to stack) with one other mem access to
> > >        the cpu_state structure, which will be in cache.
> > 
> > Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
> 
> Not really, only an apple and orange comparison.  A 10000 iteration 
> tests/sha1 run in the same Linux image, with -no-kqemu, on host and target 
> i386:  time ./sha1
> 
> with qemu-0.8.2 (compiled by gcc 3.3-hammer): 7.92 seconds
> with qemu-0.9.0-cvs (gcc4.1 compiled, with the patch): 8.15 seconds
> 
> I'll try to get a better comparison.

So, I've now compared our 0.9.0 package, once without patch compiled by 
3.3-hammer, and once with patch and compiled by gcc 4.2:

gcc33 compiled: 7.81 seconds (i.e. a bit faster than 0.8.2 was)
gcc42 compiled: 8.07 seconds

I.e. 3% slower.


Ciao,
Michael.