On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 14:46 -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > I think we should build for ARM (as opposed to Thumb2) but we should > support interworking with Thumb2 code through the toolchain options. We > should then later consider implementing some Thumb2 optimization. It's > more armv7thl, but the (t) is implied since it's ARMv7 anyway. The thumb2 situation needs a bit more investigation. I had someone do tests on thumb vs non-thumb last year, and there was no question about thumb1 on v5 (thumb caused a major performance hit) but it was not nearly as clear for thumb2 on v7 - the (very preliminary) results (using a BeagleBoard) indicated the same or slightly better performance for thumb2 over non-thumb2 (this was for packages built using the rpm/mock toolchain with what were otherwise normal Fedora flags), and obviously a smaller binary size. I think some comprehensive testing is needed. -Chris _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
