On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Darren Hart <dvh...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 08/23/2011 08:34 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Darren Hart <dvh...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> On 08/23/2011 05:38 AM, Koen Kooi wrote: >>>> >>>> Op 20 aug. 2011, om 00:23 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven: >>>> >>>>> Fixes [YOCTO #1203] >>>>> >>>>> Using the hard floating point abi is incompatible with some binary >>>>> libaries and 3D support for the Beagleboard. As we do not provide >>>>> these in poky and meta-yocto, we can take advantage of the hard >>>>> floating point abi. >>>> >>>> What advantage are you talking about? So far everyone has been unable >>>> to provide real-world numbers[1] that show hardfp making a difference >>>> compared to a properly configured softfp. The numbers debian and >>>> meego are showing are comparing it against completely vfpless builds, >>> >>> >>> That's good reasoning to stick with softfp+neon. Unfortunately I can't >>> find the mail threads that first got me looking into adding hardfp >>> support. As I said, I'm not sold on the idea, but it was requested so I >>> looked into how to address it. >>> >>> If nobody comes forward saying they would really like to have this, I'm >>> going to modify the patch series to disable hardfp by default, but leave >>> the infrastructure in place so people can enable if they like. >> >> Well, are there some softfp related config bits we need on the yocto >> side that meta-ti has, in order to bring that performance back in >> line? > > Are you referring to a specific performance measure?
Just the general ones that have caused people to say softfp+neon isn't enough (outside of povray :)). -- Tom _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
