Re: cortex / arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi (was Re: armelfp: new architecture name for an armel variant)
Konstantinos Margaritis a écrit :
> On Friday 16 July 2010 10:47:40 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> Have this 30% have actually been measured on such applications?
>
> how can I benchmark the desktop? It feels faster, that's definite.
>
>> If softfp is already 10x faster, does the additional 30% between softfp
>> and hardfp really worth it? Do we need to switch to hardfp instead of
>> softfp, while only the second one needs a new port?
>
> No, no, softfp is faster than _soft_, which is, well, irrelevant here. We're
> not comparing to soft, we're comparing softfp vs hardfp. The point is that the
> cpus in the particular family are more than able to perform much better than
> they are right now, and it's only a case of recompilation.
Why are we comparing softfp vs hardfp? We should compare the existing
armel port, that is soft, vs both softfp and hardfp.
>> Picking the right name is probably lest than 0.0001% of the work...
>
> Yes, but we seem to get stuck even there. Anyway, assuming we pick a name that
> Debian likes, would Debian assist us and -if successful- eventually adopt the
> port?
> I'm aware of the hard work needed, but imho, it's more than worth it.
>
What do you call Debian exactly?
Experience shows that maintainers usually do not care about a new port
until it blocks migration to testing.
For the release team and ftpmaster point of view, the best is probably
to ask them first.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: