Catalin, thanks for your proposal; we discussed this option this week since we were meeting with other Canonical people, notably Matthias and Colin.
On the idea to handle all VFP instructions as kernel traps on systems without a FPU, we think it will be too slow. In my experience, even alignment traps are a huge hit on performance when they happen, and FPU instructions would appear in a lot of random places. So while it would technically "work", it wouldn't be working at a decent level. We're currently trying to assemble good benchmarks to decide about another solution, and we will get back to you as soon as we manage to have enough data. (We're using the mojo prebuilt hardy archives as a base to compare the impact of various opts in various combinations.) However, the kernel traps would be an excellent safety net in case some binary with VFP instructions ends up on such systems, and it might be a good idea to have this support; but it wont be enough by itself to turn VFP instructions generation on in jaunty. :-/ -- armel gcc default optimisations https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/303232 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
