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.