On Thu 19 Apr 2007 16:45, Greg Ungerer pondered: > I haven't run the dhrystone code for a while, so I don't have > any specific numbers.
OK - no problem. > When I last looked at this the big difference seemed to be that > hardware vendors (well, Freescale in my example case) where using > the fast internal RAM to run dhrystone. Running it from DRAM was > am immediate big lose. > > Then on top of that was compiler. > > Together that meant that numbers measured under uClinux where > significantly lower. Yeah, I think we are in the same boat, but not quite as bad, since we have enough i/d cache that things don't seem to hit external SDRAM much/at all. > Most of the work I did was with fully relocated application > binaries - so no PIC to slow it down. Which is why we test/measure both with flat, and fdpic. I was actually surprised at the low overhead of PIC for some of the tests. With -O3 -static -fomit-frame-pointer on both, flat measured 374.69, and PIC measured 371.02, only a ~1% difference - which I thought was pretty good. -Robin _______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by [email protected] To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
