On 5 September 2011 10:52, Marcin Juszkiewicz <marcin.juszkiew...@linaro.org> wrote: > W dniu 05.09.2011 11:28, Andrew Stubbs pisze: >> Next question ... is /proc/cpuinfo really the best way to detect this? >> >> I mean, is auxv a better approach? Or something else? What's the most >> efficient, and most stable API to read the CPU architecture, CPU model, >> and FPU/NEON availability? >> >> There's some worry among the toolchain team that /proc/cpuinfo is a >> somewhat fragile and inefficient way to achieve this goal. Some insight >> from the kernel experts would be helpful! > > Remember that there are cpus like imx51 to2 which have broken neon and > this is shown in /proc/cpuinfo (no neon flag for them). So using own > tests should also check what kernel has to say.
Yes, but that is indicated both in /proc/cpuinfo and in the auxv vector, so it doesn't make any difference to the "is parsing cpuinfo a good/bad idea" question. -- PMM _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
