Re: cortex / arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi (was Re: armelfp: new architecture name for an armel variant)
Konstantinos Margaritis a écrit :
> On Thursday 15 July 2010 17:34:01 Martin Guy wrote:
>> I still doubt that the disruption and extra work for the community of
>> Debian package maintainers, and the lower quality of the resulting
>> archive, is worth the small increment in speed that is promised. I
>> hope
>
> 30% *measured* (vs promised) speed increase is nothing to sneer at on low-end
> cpus like Cortex-A8 is. This speed increase might just make the difference
> from a jerky movie playback to a fluid one, or it might make desktop
> experience just a bit more pleasant -yes, there is a LOT of floating point
> work on the desktop (eg. SVG icon rendering). Actually, come to think of it,
Have this 30% have actually been measured on such applications?
> according to some people here, Debian uses soft (not even softfp) so the speed
> difference of the fp applications of the new port to the *existing* Debian
> port (armel) would be HUGE (more than 10x faster, according to my
> measurements). It's not a matter of comparing this port to an existing
> hardfloat port -like OpenEmbedded or Gentoo, or whatever, it's offering a
> better choice for ARM users who want to use Debian.
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?
> Anyway, this is beside the point. We're doing it, one way or the other, the
> question here is if Debian itself would be interested to accomodate such a
> port -if it becomes successful. If one of the steps needed for Debian to do so
> is picking the right name, I'm all for it -in fact I'd go as far as choose
> armhf right now, but I'll get back on that a bit later.
>
Picking the right name is probably lest than 0.0001% of the work...
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: