[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1362423301.29250.16@driftwood>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:55:01 -0600
From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: ARM optimisations
On 03/02/2013 12:21:02 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > systems aren't that common. (They existed, the tin can tools nail
> > board used one, but the generic C code works for them. Point is I'm
> > not sure they're worth _optimizing_ for if it costs the vast
> > majority of systems a 25% performance hit and we don't want to
> > maintain multiple versions. If you _have_ an armv5 version, the
> > armv4 one won't/shouldn't get much testing.)
>
> Can you explain why you think a version that's v4 compatible will be
> that much slower? If so, v5 code can be used as long as it checks
> __hwcap and falls back to a simple working version...
Alas, I do not have recent benchmarks. The timesys guys benched various
stuff in 2006 and that's where I grabbed the 25% figure. I mostly test
under qemu, where benchmarks are meaningless for real hardware.
If I'm in error, ignore me.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
