[Top] [All Lists]


To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <>
Subject: Re:
From: Manuel Lauss <>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:28:48 +0200
Cc: David Daney <>, Jabir M <>,,
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5zy6fRjrub2yz4HFpwH/T07Yl1JktnvFCG/YKt34MZY=; b=X+68dRCwrow9Sd/YC4M2DkodYqjJ78itrtzHHNX/qUx9d2xGZ/KIC5nwKQcCZkthAu dnnVD4osfe33+QSbaqUQjkbnNJ8T8n4Ny/mFhI+cVZ9JvCovDUrc1WPPBuFzrdrUkmfq o6+mJR/4ZgcrhRt+oL1LmR6sIFEGSxQcwwO7U=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=uR65LjRKfQvRaUJPxoJpLERstWmxr6hT79pLuiH5r569m1qcfRXTZPGm8VzGcUZBr2 hNlo0EsdMkXYlKDsQh+B05u0fRIDO1PhLp73ogYWrpvU1I9bAmWO093vs7JbDLRo+tod v5VNqdbQIL1RZP5O0ovI5GEpjJikPZoEdSvqM=
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Kevin D. Kissell <> wrote:
> An optimized, assembly-language soft-float library implementation is *much*
> faster than the kernel emulator, but I benchmarked it once upon a time
> against a portable gnu soft-float library in C, and the difference wasn't
> nearly as dramatic.

The in-kernel emulator always works.  The float conformance test app Ralf
pointed out a few weeks ago doesn't run correctly when built with a recent
softfloat gcc with any optimization higher than O0 (tested with 4.4.4, 4.3.4).
I'd take correctness over speed any day of the week...


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>