On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 20:15:37 -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2/10/23 02:35, Emilio Cota wrote:
> > I ran yesterday linux-user SPEC06 benchmarks from your tcg-life branch.
> > I do see perf regressions for two workloads (sjeng and xalancbmk).
> > With perf(1) I see liveness_pass* are at
On 2/10/23 02:35, Emilio Cota wrote:
I ran yesterday linux-user SPEC06 benchmarks from your tcg-life branch.
I do see perf regressions for two workloads (sjeng and xalancbmk).
With perf(1) I see liveness_pass* are at 0.00%, so I wonder: is it
possible that the emitted code isn't quite the same?
Ping for the 9 patches lacking review.
r~
On 1/30/23 10:59, Richard Henderson wrote:
Based-on: 20230126043824.54819-1-richard.hender...@linaro.org
("[PATCH v5 00/36] tcg: Support for Int128 with helpers")
The biggest pitfall for new users of TCG is the fact that "normal"
temporaries die at
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:59:07 -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
(snip)
> With this, and by not recycling TEMP_LOCAL, we can get identical code
> out of the backend even when changing the front end translators are
> adjusted to use TEMP_LOCAL for everything.
>
> Benchmarking one test
Based-on: 20230126043824.54819-1-richard.hender...@linaro.org
("[PATCH v5 00/36] tcg: Support for Int128 with helpers")
The biggest pitfall for new users of TCG is the fact that "normal"
temporaries die at branches, and we must therefore use a different
"local" temporary in that case.
The
