From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51374) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQbtw-0000Uk-67 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12:02:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQbts-00019x-8s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12:02:40 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37975) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQbts-00018i-21 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12:02:36 -0400 References: <20170629010300.2848-1-f4bug@amsat.org> <0e0d7ae6-5c1e-5c54-9d09-ef03e600b87e@redhat.com> <98d49899-a2d8-8ecc-70ac-becc5252ae32@redhat.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:02:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/8] removal of tci (tcg interpreter) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Richard Henderson , =?UTF-8?Q?Alex_Benn=c3=a9e?= , "Emilio G . Cota" , Stefan Weil , Peter Maydell On 29.06.2017 17:47, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 29/06/2017 17:46, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> TCI is enabled only with a specific configure argument if your machine >>> is not supported by TCG. This would break _build_ configurations, not >>> user configurations. It's a remote possibility that users are building >>> their own QEMU, with TCI enabled, to work around a TCG bug. So we can >>> be more speedy in removing the code. >> You never know ... it's unlikely, but there might be people around who >> run configure with "--enable-tcg-interpreter" on purpose. > > And they have never reported a bug? :) But I agree it's not a big deal. > Richard should decide. > > Paolo > >> And why the >> hurry for removing this? It's been around in the current shape since >> years, so waiting for two more releases does not hurt, does it? The various BSD folks also decided to rather maintain their patches downstream instead of trying hard to get them included in the upstream repository... now that we've got a deprecation warning in the configure script, things fortunately start to change :-) Likely nobody is maintaining downstream TCI patches ... but we don't really now for sure - it could be the same situation as with BSD. So we should give the users a chance to speak up first before we remove it. Thomas