On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:02:13AM +0100, Paul Brook wrote: > I suspect making dyngen handle jump tables is not going to happen.
Which brings up the question of dyngen. Very clever and a very good way of bootstrapping QEMU in the early days, but too brittle going forwards now the rest of QEMU works so well. You had an alternative approach to dyngen, pointed at here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2006-10/msg00227.html Any thoughts about the future of hand-coded backends in QEMU? I wasn't convinced at first (and, given resources, it isn't nearly as good as a special-purpose language for describing CPUs at this level) but I now think your work is a very good solution for bootstrapping QEMU to the next level of users. -- Dan Shearer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
