[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cortex / arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi (was Re: armelfp: new architecture name for an armel variant)

> > Do the math, there are 6 more vmov instructions (all between rX and sX
> > registers) in the softfp versions. Ok, if one gives a stall of 20 cycles,
> > how many cycles do we lose in sinf() alone?

> So, what exactly did you want to prove? 

Mainly that your analysis of the code was almost entirely bogus.

You chose sinf as an example of a common critical routine and made a big show 
of the effect, predicting that softfp would be over a hundred cycles slower (6 
instructions * 20 cycle stalls).  In reality it's a dozen cycles either way, 
with softfp being faster in some circumstances.


Reply to: