Dennis Gilmore píše v Čt 04. 03. 2010 v 13:49 -0600: > On Thursday 04 March 2010 01:26:07 pm Chris Tyler wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 12:04 -0600, Adam Miller wrote: > > > RAM is a really good point, I think it will be in the ballpark of 256 > > > (plus or minus a bit). Also, I'd like to open up the conversation > > > about version of ARM we as a SIG want to support as the efforts start > > > to ramp up while targeting popular devices. I think ARMv9 might be a > > > little too aggressive but are there any devices that are still > > > prominent that are ARMv5? Would it be possible (or even feasible) to > > > maintain ARMv5, ARMv7, and ARMv9 in parallel and treat them as > > > separate architectures? > > > > The ARM "Family" vs. "Architecture" numbering is wonky (and very > > frustrating - larger numbers don't reliably mean newer, bigger, faster, > > or better). The SheevaPlug uses an "ARM9E" family chip, which uses the > > "ARMv5TEJ" architecture. ARMv5 is a needed current target for that > > device and others. > > > > However, the popular Cortex chips use ARMv6M and ARMx7* architecture. Is > > there enough performance difference to warrant targeting both > > independently? And just the kernel, or userspace as well? > > I suspect building different optimised glibc andl openssl might be enough. > there could be some other packages that could benefit from different > optimisations things like theora etc. That's also my opinion. Dan _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
