> However, we know that the results for hosts of different architectures > will be different - we expect that. > > 32-bit Intel host will also most likely produce significantly > different results than 64-bit Intel hosts. By the way, 64-bit targets > in QEMU linux-user mode are not supported on 32-bit hosts (although > nothing stops the user to start corresponding instances of QEMU on a > 32-bit host, but the results are unpredictable. > > Let's focus now on Intel 64-bit hosts only. Richard, can you perhaps > enlighten us on whether QEMU (from the point of view of TCG target) > behaves differently on different Intel 64-bit hosts, and to what > degree? > > I currently work remotely, but once I am be physically at my office I > will have a variety of hosts at the company, and would be happy to do > the comparison between them, wrt what you presented in Report 2. > > In conclusion, I think a basic description of your test bed is missing > in your reports. And, for final reports (which we call "nightly > reports") a detailed system description, as Mr Lukas outlined, is, > also in my opinion, necessary. > > Thanks, Mr. Lukas, for bringing this to our attention! >
You're welcome. I'm more on the python side, but as far as I know different cpu models (provided their features are enabled) and especially architectures result in way different code-paths. Imagine an old processor without vector instructions compare to newer ones that can process multiple instructions at once. As for the reports, I don't think that at this point it would be necessary to focus on anything besides a single cpu model (x86_64 Intel) as there are already many variables. Later someone can follow-up with a cross-arch comparison, if necessary. Regards, Lukáš > Yours, > Aleksandar > > > > >> Best regards, >> Ahmed Karaman >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
