On 20 October 2011 23:22, Michael Hope <michael.h...@linaro.org> wrote: > 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.
Yes, I saw it. >> I also don't think EEMBC is representative of real-world apps. > > Agreed. It's an embedded benchmark. SPEC would be interesting. I don't think it's representative of anything, embedded or otherwise. >>> 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? Arrays end up in .data or .rodata, never .text. -- Mans Rullgard / mru _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
