Re: cortex / arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi (was Re: armelfp: new architecture name for an armel variant)
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 09:55:49AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Aurelien Jarno <email@example.com> [2010-07-16 09:38]:
> > BTW, has anybody thought about increasing the minimum requirement for
> > the armel port, for example to armv5? Available machines has evolved,
> > maybe the port should do the same.
> Indeed. From Paul's emails, I'm getting the feeling that moving the
> armel port to armv5
My impression is the ARMv4t -> ARMV5 doesn't really gain many useful
instructions (PLD, CLZ), so it is not neccesarily worth it, at least
as long as there ar ARMv4t users (basicly openmoko).
> and proving optimized libraries for some things might be the way to go.
And when the performance critical code is not in a library but in a binary?