From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N1XEM-0000Xy-Qe
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:23:50 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N1XEI-0000T6-A6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:23:50 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39714 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N1XEI-0000Sq-4c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:23:46 -0400
Received: from mail-pz0-f188.google.com ([209.85.222.188]:54846)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <geleman@gmail.com>) id 1N1XEH-0001J9-Q9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:23:45 -0400
Received: by pzk26 with SMTP id 26so6552940pzk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4AE1FCBD.8030904@mail.berlios.de>
References: <a38b25540910221831u1f43a337s8863b93930f275e9@mail.gmail.com>
	<4AE1FCBD.8030904@mail.berlios.de>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:23:43 +0800
Message-ID: <a38b25540910232023v2bdcb2e4s4f0d156cd556d669@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] tcg, tci: Add TCG and interpreter for
	bytecode (virtual machine)
From: TeLeMan <geleman@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:58, Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote:
> Is patch 4 (call handling) needed, or is it an optimization?
> If it is needed, the tcg disassembler has to be extended as well.
In fact tci has no stack and robber registers and doesn't need
simulate the CPU work. I am trying to remove tcg_reg_alloc() in
tcg_reg_alloc_op() & tcg_reg_alloc_call() and access the temporary
variables directly in tci.

> And did patch 5 (inline) speed up the code? I had expected
> that static functions don't need inline, because the compiler
> can optimize them anyway.
You are right, patch 5 is not needed.