On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:53:32AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/07/2012 11:17 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > For what it worth, I measure a 4% slow down booting a sparc64 guest on a
> > Core-i5 2500 machine. I guess the memcpy() of the register windows is
> > more expensive that the gain
On 10/07/2012 11:17 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> For what it worth, I measure a 4% slow down booting a sparc64 guest on a
> Core-i5 2500 machine. I guess the memcpy() of the register windows is
> more expensive that the gain on the TCG side, though it should be
> probably be confirmed using some pro
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 12:15:16PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:00:04PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > This applies with or without the sparc-compare patch set I
> > recently sent, and it works with the same set of tests.
> >
> > I've not had time to do true bench
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:00:04PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> This applies with or without the sparc-compare patch set I
> recently sent, and it works with the same set of tests.
>
> I've not had time to do true benchmarking on this, but it
> does reduce the size of the generated code:
Exp
This applies with or without the sparc-compare patch set I
recently sent, and it works with the same set of tests.
I've not had time to do true benchmarking on this, but it
does reduce the size of the generated code:
BEFORE
Translation buffer state:
gen code size 509344/33431552
TB count
