On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Nicolas Pitre <n...@cam.org> wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > >> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Nicolas Pitre <n...@cam.org> wrote: >> > About performance: things are reasonable again. It takes 90 seconds to >> > flash 450 KB to NAND instead of 5 minutes. But in the days of rev 1520 >> > this was like 80 seconds, so there is still a slight regression left >> > there. >> >> Any chance you can check if that residual performance regression >> is somewhere between 1520 and 1606? > > What I was saying is that, compared to 1520, the current head is like > 10% slower. But it is way better than 1729 which was 4 times slower.
I can't explain, off the bat, why svn head would be slower. What if the residual regression happened between 1520 and 1606? Perhaps you could bisect it down to a release between 1520 and 1606? At least it would be good to know the performance of 1520 vs. 1606... -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
