Re: MKSOFTFLOAT for evbppc
Greg Troxel <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.ports.powerpc |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Matt Thomas <[email protected]> writes: > On Sep 20, 2012, at 8:31 PM, Simon Burge wrote: > >> Matt Thomas wrote: >> >>>> (Also, for the port page: does fp emulation via traps work? Or is >>>> MKSOFTFLOAT the only way that can possibly work?) >>> >>> Within the past 4 months or so, I added emulation of the FPU so you can >>> run without MKSOFTFLOAT=yes. >> >> It looks like we've still got the same FPU emulator from the Walnut >> (405GP) days. Way back when (2001?), softfloat was orders of magnitude >> faster on a Walnut. There's the timings for an awk command issued >> during a kernel build at the time: >> >> emulate: 113.554u 2778.750s 52:30.75 91.7% >> softfloat: 7.607u 1.447s 0:10.57 85.5% >> >> This was the only reason we did softfloat at the time. > > On a P2020, a build.sh distribution for evbppc took 6.2% less time on > a softfloat userland .vs. hardfloat userland with kernel-emulation. > > 10h55m32s (soft) vs. 11h38m50s (hard) So it's good to hear that trapfloat (?) works (did you install that build?), but 6% seems like enough that using softfloat is in order. But, I see the point that having one userland usable on all evbppc is nice, and perhaps not worth 6% in the standard distribution, since using softfloat on machines with hardfloat (not trapfloat) is surely vastly slower.
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 194 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (NetBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlBjTfwACgkQ+vesoDJhHiXwlQCfVL2QSifZrX6sF3RjdLHW3gvs UEgAnAsixX3eXt5FZCChmPX6JpgSfZvN =MDqc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----