From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DYpb8-00013L-PM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 May 2005 14:18:19 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DYpb5-000125-QQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 May 2005 14:18:15 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DYpb5-000122-ML
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 May 2005 14:18:15 -0400
Received: from [64.233.184.204] (helo=wproxy.gmail.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DYpfa-0004kC-Bb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 May 2005 14:22:54 -0400
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so796835wra
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 19 May 2005 11:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <d7e2700f05051911145bcc2bd0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 20:14:20 +0200
From: Thomas Steffen <steffen.list.account@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [patch] gcc4 host support
In-Reply-To: <200505191644.54916.paul@codesourcery.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <DE8E20E8-C836-11D9-875C-003065C7D858@mandriva.com>
	<200505191420.16777.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0505191546220.5807@thalys.mandrakesoft.com>
	<200505191644.54916.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: Thomas Steffen <steffen.list.account@gmail.com>,
	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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 5/19/05, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> I don't think GNU lightning really gains us much. We'd still have to do t=
he
> hard bits (optimization, register allocation, assigning stack slots, etc)=
.
> The actual native code generation (which is what lightning gives you) is =
only
> a few hundred lines of code.

I have the feeling that will apply to most alternatives. The problem
is to turn the C code into machine code, right? That is a difficult
problem, which is why a C compiler is a complex piece of software.
Using a different tool is not going to turn it into a simple problem.

So I think gcc is still the best bet. If the issue with the return
point is the only problem, there should be several possible solution
(with different performance impact).

Thomas