On 02/14/2012 10:54 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> By the way, it could be possible to extract and extend the regparm(3)
> change and switch to always using the stack based calling convention
> (eliminate REGPARM), before AREG0 patches. Then the performance effect
> could be measured for just this change.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 23:41, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/13/2012 12:13 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> Blue Swirl (6):
>> TCG: split i386 and x86_64
>> TCG: clean up i386 and x86_64
>
> I object to these. I do NOT think splitting these makes the code base
> as a whole any cleaner.
Currently
On 02/14/2012 03:38 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 14.02.2012 00:41, schrieb Richard Henderson:
>> On 02/13/2012 12:13 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> Blue Swirl (6):
>>> TCG: split i386 and x86_64
>>> TCG: clean up i386 and x86_64
>>
>> I object to these. I do NOT think splitting these makes the co
Am 14.02.2012 00:41, schrieb Richard Henderson:
> On 02/13/2012 12:13 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> Blue Swirl (6):
>> TCG: split i386 and x86_64
>> TCG: clean up i386 and x86_64
>
> I object to these. I do NOT think splitting these makes the code base
> as a whole any cleaner.
>
> Is this really
On 02/13/2012 12:13 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Blue Swirl (6):
> TCG: split i386 and x86_64
> TCG: clean up i386 and x86_64
I object to these. I do NOT think splitting these makes the code base
as a whole any cleaner.
Is this really just about the differences wrt the softmmu templates?
Surely t
Hello,
In this version I used a different approach to x86. Splitting TCG i386
and x86_64 makes the code much cleaner. Then instead of regparm(3)
calling convention with register passing, I use standard stack based
version.
Both i386 and x86_64 hosts work with both Sparc32 and Sparc64 guests.
I h
