+++ Christian Robottom Reis [2012-07-18 15:21 -0300]:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:00:23PM +0100, David Rusling wrote:
> > > So it's hard to know how much of the improvement is due to compiling
> > > for v6 over v4t, soft-float vs vfp, armhf ABI vs armel ABI, and
> > > possibly variation in gcc use
On 18 July 2012 19:21, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:00:23PM +0100, David Rusling wrote:
>> > So it's hard to know how much of the improvement is due to compiling
>> > for v6 over v4t, soft-float vs vfp, armhf ABI vs armel ABI, and
>> > possibly variation in gcc used.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:00:23PM +0100, David Rusling wrote:
> > So it's hard to know how much of the improvement is due to compiling
> > for v6 over v4t, soft-float vs vfp, armhf ABI vs armel ABI, and
> > possibly variation in gcc used. I suspect all of those are mixed in.
Agreed, but wow, the
That sounds similar to what Konstantinos found compiling with and
without hard float ABI for ARMv7 architecture.
Dave
On 18/07/12 14:52, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Michael Hope [2012-07-18 14:37 +1200]:
>> The Raspbian project is a rebuild of Debian for the Raspberry Pi.
>> adama did some benchmarks tha
+++ Michael Hope [2012-07-18 14:37 +1200]:
> The Raspbian project is a rebuild of Debian for the Raspberry Pi.
> adama did some benchmarks that show the improvement in going from
> ARMv4T with soft float to ARMv6 with hard float:
> http://www.memetic.org/raspbian-benchmarking-armel-vs-armhf/
>
>
