On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 16:35 +0100, Paul Brook wrote: > > > >> OK, great. Having 64 bits may also help for additional (ie future...) > > > >> features in PowerPC 64 emulation. > > > > > > > > Maybe worth letting the target say whether it needs 32 or 64-bit > > > > flags. > > > > The flag lookup is likely to be on a hot path. > > > > > > > > I may be wrong, but it seems to me that TB flags are only used to be > > compared in tb_find_fast and tb_find_slow, which are not a very fast > > path (we come here when we cannot jump directly to the next tb and are > > not in the most time critical code) then we can afford adding a few asm > > instructions (I would say max 2 ?) to replace a 32 bits comparison with > > a 64 bits one. My feeling is that the performance loss here won't be > > sensible, but that may need to be proved. > > For some reason I thought the flags were also used in the hash lookup. This > is > not the case, so I withdraw my objection.
OK, then I feel like the flags size modification patch is acceptable. If there is no objection (and if no one commits it before ;-)), I'm ready to integrate it in the days to come. -- J. Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Never organized
