From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LkFeg-0000ZN-GD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:39:18 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LkFeb-0000Ru-Tt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:39:18 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46265 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LkFeb-0000Rq-Lg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:39:13 -0400
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:57560 helo=ciao.gmane.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <gceq-qemu-devel@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1LkFeb-0002FU-4t
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:39:13 -0400
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LkFeZ-0003T7-RE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:39:11 +0000
Received: from 141.76.6.219 ([141.76.6.219])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:39:11 +0000
Received: from usenet by 141.76.6.219 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:39:11 +0000
From: Steffen Liebergeld <usenet@gmx.eu>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <gpt7c5$2v2$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <gpo05k$6u4$1@ger.gmane.org> <49BF8A5B.7070706@siemens.com>
	<gpo56s$o1f$1@ger.gmane.org> <200903171251.41148.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<gpt5ht$utu$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<761ea48b0903190330j663a388akf65fb78b9579ddb9@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: branches are expensive
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Laurent Desnogues <laurent.desnogues@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Steffen Liebergeld <usenet@gmx.eu> wrote:
>>
>> I've tested Qemu 0.10.0 and with i386-softmmu on a i386 host I get the
>> following numbers:
>> direct jump count 70%, 2 jumps 54%
>>
>> For qemu-system-arm on an ARM host, the numbers look like this:
>> direct jump count 47%, 2 jumps 40%
>>
>> For completeness I tested qemu-system-arm on a i386 host as well:
>> direct jump count 44%, 2 jumps 37%
>>
>> So it looks like the chaining on ARM targets is not as effective as on i386
>> targets (regardless of the guest, I used the same guest setup, compiled for
>> different architectures, on all tests). Do you have any ideas why this is the
>> case?
>
> Different instruction sets, different compilers.  You'd better compare
> guest code before drawing any conclusion.

The qemu-system-arm on ARM and i386 were compiled by the same compiler.

Greetings, Steffen