Hi, On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Julian Seward wrote:
> On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:27, Paul Brook wrote: > > > Do you mean you're asking me to break up Paul Brook's QOPS tree at > > > https://nowt.dyndns.org and submit it to mainline? I can do this thing, > > > if you really think it would help. > > > > If you implement all the missing bits in the process it'll help ;-) > > What bits would they be then? AFAICT almost _all_ ops for the i86 target are missing. > FWIW, I snarfed the patch last Sunday and tested it on amd64 host / x86 > guest, and successfully booted a couple of linux distros. So it's not > obviously broken, at least for my mundane host/guest choice. It also > seemed marginally slower on a big compile in the guest - 395.4 host cpu > seconds for mainline vs 422.9 with qops. I saw something similar (qops performing worse than non-qops), which I could only explain by the non-optimizing nature of not relying on GCC's optimizer. Ciao, Dscho _______________________________________________ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
