On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Mans Rullgard <mans.rullg...@linaro.org> wrote: > 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?
More than 10 %. I can't share raw numbers in public as our EEMBC license doesn't allow it. I've sent the raw numbers to the linaro-toolchain-benchmarks list. > I also don't think EEMBC is representative of real-world apps. Agreed. It's an embedded benchmark. SPEC would be interesting. >> EEMBC embeds the test data in the executable so it it's hard to tell >> the change in text size. > > The 'size' command? It turns the images and such into C arrays so they appear in the text segment. Hmm, I wonder if they get split into .rodata? -- Michael _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
