Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
Hi, On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Mulyadi Santosa wrote: If I may jump into the pool... I plan to work around the MinGW issue by guarding the offending part by #ifdef GCC..., even if I have been told that it works only by chance (but it works, whereas any other option I tried does not). Thanks for not saying who you quote. Ehm, should we better wait a bit for fabrice to complete his code code generator? I said work around, didn't I? And so far I have not seen anything but an announcement that Fabrice will start in the next days. but I just think it will save us from more work in the future (making it always gcc 3 compatible) and thus progress to more demanding area like truly support SVM/VT, better SMP and so on. Most unlikely will it save us more work. The miniops right now are implemented as plain C commands. If the good gcc guys would not have insisted on not having an option to force the ret or jmp statement at the end of the function, we could use them for _all_ processors. As it is, Fabrice's code generator will most likely be something similar to Paul's qops, which means that you have to invent a primitive C in which to write the miniops, and you will have to write a backend for _each_ and _every_ host CPU you support. Things clearer now? Hth, Dscho
Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
Am 21.01.2008 um 12:18 schrieb Johannes Schindelin: The miniops right now are implemented as plain C commands. If the good gcc guys would not have insisted on not having an option to force the ret or jmp statement at the end of the function, we could use them for _all_ processors. As it is, Fabrice's code generator will most likely be something similar to Paul's qops, which means that you have to invent a primitive C in which to write the miniops, and you will have to write a backend for _each_ and _every_ host CPU you support. Has anyone looked into the idea of manually generating machine instructions through preprocessor macros at runtime, then jumping there? That's what the Mono JIT does, leaving C compilers completely out of the picture. But apart from it being lots of work to start from scratch and for each and every host CPU, if translating at instruction level rather than method level it would require lots of jumps between instruction decoding and generated instructions though. Andreas
Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
As it is, Fabrice's code generator will most likely be something similar to Paul's qops, which means that you have to invent a primitive C in which to write the miniops, and you will have to write a backend for _each_ and _every_ host CPU you support. It's not a terribly big deal. Writing backends is a lot easier than writing front ends, since the back end can just emit some small convenient subset of target instructions, whereas the front ends have to deal with every stupid, obscure, weird-ass instruction that ever shows up. QEMU is not the first project to post-process gcc's output. The Glasgow Haskell Compiler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Haskell_Compiler) did that for many years and it was always an immense amount of hassle tracking the changes to gcc's code generation. Having a completely-independent-of-everything, standalone code generator is definitely a lot easier in the end. Given the unwillingness of Fabrice to rely on some external project, though, I gave up even before I had something even rudimentary. Perhaps Fabrice could commit this code generator on a branch, even if it is not perfect yet. That would at least provide something real to assess; so far all we have is rumour and speculation. J
Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:18:53 + (GMT), Johannes Schindelin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Johannes The miniops right now are implemented as plain C commands. Johannes If the good gcc guys would not have insisted on not having Johannes an option to force the ret or jmp statement at the end Johannes of the function, we could use them for _all_ processors. Well, what about adding a new backend phase to gcc generating what we expect for our purpose? Ok, it is rather easy to have a branch in gcc, harder to have it accepted in the main-stream gcc... :-) With a good argumentation... -- Ronan KERYELL |\/ Tel:(+33|0) 2.29.00.14.15 Département Informatique |/) Fax:(+33|0) 2.29.00.12.82 TÉLÉCOM Bretagne, CS 83818KGSM:(+33|0) 6.13.14.37.66 F-29238 PLOUZANÉ CEDEX 3 |\ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FRANCE| \ http://enstb.org/~keryell
Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
Well, what about adding a new backend phase to gcc generating what we expect for our purpose? Ok, it is rather easy to have a branch in gcc, harder to have it accepted in the main-stream gcc... :-) With a good argumentation... IMHO (as a full time gcc developer) it's easier to just implement a code generator from scratch. Paul
Re : [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
I think you dont answer his question. ;) Kind regards, Sylvain Petreolle (aka Usurp) - Message d'origine De : Jérôme PRIOR [EMAIL PROTECTED] À : qemu-devel@nongnu.org Envoyé le : Dimanche, 20 Janvier 2008, 19h40mn 29s Objet : Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please could you please consider supporting gcc 4 ? you can install gcc-3 in other directory and use the --cc= option. On Slackware I just installpkg -root /tmp/gcc3-just-for-qemu gcc-3*tgz ./configure --cc=/tmp/gcc3-just-for-qemu/usr/bin/gcc make ... works fine.
Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Sylvain Petreolle wrote: I think you dont answer his question. ;) his question is bogus. if he spent 5 seconds reading the archives, it isnt like people arent considering supporting gcc 4. having people type all caps e-mails contributes nothing. either put up and assist the effort or shut it. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
Hi, On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote: having people type all caps e-mails contributes nothing. I disagree: it makes it easier to spot whom to ignore. Unless you know that person, of course, and respect her, too. Ciao, Dscho
Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote: On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote: having people type all caps e-mails contributes nothing. I disagree: it makes it easier to spot whom to ignore. Unless you know that person, of course, and respect her, too. yes, the caps flags people to ignore, but that isnt what i meant. people who write all caps e-mails contribute nothing to the problem they're complaining about. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Sunil Amitkumar Janki wrote: Ignoring the fact that the original poster wrote in all caps and can't contribute much to qemu development, what is being done or who can give directions on what would have to be done to make qemu build using gcc4. I'd prefer it too that I wouldn't have to keep an old gcc 3.x compiler around specifically to build qemu, so what can we do about that? as i said, review the archives and you'll find many discussions with real information on the topic -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
On Jan 20, 2008 11:26 PM, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 20 January 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote: On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote: having people type all caps e-mails contributes nothing. I disagree: it makes it easier to spot whom to ignore. Unless you know that person, of course, and respect her, too. yes, the caps flags people to ignore, but that isnt what i meant. people who write all caps e-mails contribute nothing to the problem they're complaining about. -mike Ignoring the fact that the original poster wrote in all caps and can't contribute much to qemu development, what is being done or who can give directions on what would have to be done to make qemu build using gcc4. I'd prefer it too that I wouldn't have to keep an old gcc 3.x compiler around specifically to build qemu, so what can we do about that? Sunil
Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
Am 20.01.2008 um 23:38 schrieb Sunil Amitkumar Janki: Ignoring the fact that the original poster wrote in all caps and can't contribute much to qemu development, what is being done or who can give directions on what would have to be done to make qemu build using gcc4. I'd prefer it too that I wouldn't have to keep an old gcc 3.x compiler around specifically to build qemu, so what can we do about that? I have some more reading to catch up but the last I heard was that virtually everything worked except for gcc 4.3 and MinGW 3.4.2 and in my case sh4*-softmmu on OSX/ppc gcc 4.0.1... What to do about any of that I don't know either. Andreas
Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
Hi, On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Andreas Färber wrote: Am 20.01.2008 um 23:38 schrieb Sunil Amitkumar Janki: Ignoring the fact that the original poster wrote in all caps and can't contribute much to qemu development, what is being done or who can give directions on what would have to be done to make qemu build using gcc4. I'd prefer it too that I wouldn't have to keep an old gcc 3.x compiler around specifically to build qemu, so what can we do about that? I have some more reading to catch up but the last I heard was that virtually everything worked except for gcc 4.3 and MinGW 3.4.2 and in my case sh4*-softmmu on OSX/ppc gcc 4.0.1... What to do about any of that I don't know either. All of sh4-*, in fact. I plan to work around the MinGW issue by guarding the offending part by #ifdef GCC..., even if I have been told that it works only by chance (but it works, whereas any other option I tried does not). Ciao, Dscho
Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
On Jan 21, 2008, at 4:39 AM, Mulyadi Santosa wrote: Hi... If I may jump into the pool... I plan to work around the MinGW issue by guarding the offending part by #ifdef GCC..., even if I have been told that it works only by chance (but it works, whereas any other option I tried does not). Ehm, should we better wait a bit for fabrice to complete his code code generator? then we can be freed (totally?) from gcc version dependency? it's not that I ignore people's effort to make qemu gcc4 compatible...but I just think it will save us from more work in the future (making it always gcc 3 compatible) and thus progress to more demanding area like truly support SVM/VT, better SMP and so on. Fabrice's code generator works for x86 and x86_64 only. In the second step it _will_ break existing miniops, so all the work put into those will be in vain. I really don't see any valid point not to implement code that makes everything work for gcc4 if it doesn't break existing setups. Actually everyone benefits if there are alternatives. Imagine you could use qemu with gcc3, gcc4 or Fabrice's new approach (probably tcc). This way nobody needs to have a specific version of their compiler suite installed and ppc, s390 etc. will still be supported. Support for SVM/VT is something KVM is about. I completely agree that qemu and kvm should be merged someday, but if I look at the length of discussions and amount of patches actually getting applied to qemu, I rather think it's not the right time to do it. You also get full SMP support from KVM too, so I don't see any valid point in complaining about that in qemu. Regards, Alex
[Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
could you please consider supporting gcc 4 ? SERVIZIO VOICE: TELEFONA e INVIA SMS dal tuo computer a tariffe vantaggiose! Scopri come telefonare e videochiamare gratis da pc a pc. http://voice.repubblica.it
