Well, somewhere I got this and I like it, I'd like to have more. On a Pi 3b:
Architecture: armv7l Byte Order: Little Endian CPU(s): 4 On-line CPU(s) list: 0-3 Thread(s) per core: 1 Core(s) per socket: 4 Socket(s): 1 Vendor ID: ARM Model: 4 Model name: Cortex-A53 Stepping: r0p4 CPU max MHz: 1200.0000 CPU min MHz: 600.0000 BogoMIPS: 51.20 Vulnerability Itlb multihit: Not affected Vulnerability L1tf: Not affected Vulnerability Mds: Not affected Vulnerability Meltdown: Not affected Vulnerability Spec store bypass: Not affected Vulnerability Spectre v1: Mitigation; __user pointer sanitization Vulnerability Spectre v2: Not affected Vulnerability Srbds: Not affected Vulnerability Tsx async abort: Not affected Flags: half thumb fastmult vfp edsp neon vfpv3 tls vfpv4 idiva idivt vfpd32 lpae evtstrm crc32 On 4/3/23, Lennart Sorensen <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:51:23PM -0400, Alan Corey wrote: >> I know I can but it will be twice as slow, which is why I want armhf. >> Under 64 bit both the data and pointers will be twice as big. With >> unlimited memory that would be OK but a Pi CPU can only access 1 GB. >> I've tried 64 bit. > > It's certainly a balance trade off. The pointers will be twice as large. > The data will be whatever size the code asked for. Only in the case that > the code asked to use a long will be be 32 bit in one case and 64 bit > in the other case. Most code isn't that sloppy about their data types. > > In terms of actual code, apparently the A53 core runs 64 bit code about > 20% faster than 32 bit code, so it comes down to whether you are doing > execution heavy or data heavy work. > > -- > Len Sorensen > -- ------------- Education is contagious.
