On 20 October 2011 23:07, Michael Hope <michael.h...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:48 AM, James Tunnicliffe > <james.tunnicli...@linaro.org> wrote: >> This isn't exactly overflowing with up to date numbers, but... >> >> http://elinux.org/images/8/8a/Experiment_with_Linux_and_ARM_Thumb-2_ISA.pdf >> >> Slides 14 and 15 say that across EEMBC Thumb-2 gives 98% of the >> performance of ARM 32 bit instructions (assume performance optimised) >> and binaries are 26% smaller (didn't catch what binary/binaries that >> was). These are numbers from 2007 and benchmarked on an ARM 11. I >> assume using ARMCC. > > I just ran EEMBC with gcc-linaro-4.6-2011.10 with -mfpu=neon -O3 > -mtune=cortex-a9 and got similar numbers. Five of the 32 tests ran > faster with Thumb-2 which is nice. I'll send the results privately as > I'm not sure we can share.
How much faster? What about the ones that didn't run faster? I also don't think EEMBC is representative of real-world apps. > EEMBC embeds the test data in the executable so it it's hard to tell > the change in text size. The 'size' command? > After de-duplicating, the average on-disk > package size was 88 % of the ARM version. Ignoring the ones that are > likely to have embedded test data, the average text size was 82 % of > ARM mode. Same as Libav then. > These days we're not really short of RAM so, as Mans says, > improvements in startup time, cache footprint, or on-disk size might > be a win. Startup time is the only real win I can see. The rest are either non-existent or irrelevant. -- Mans Rullgard / mru _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
