On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Kevin D. Kissell <kevink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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... Thank you all for your comments. I have compiled a new crosstoolchain( gcc 4.3.3 binutils 2.19.1 and glibc 2.9) and library with soft float enabled. I could see considerable performance improvement with my application. Coming back to correctnes , I ran paranoia.c [1] for verification and I got following result "No failures, defects nor flaws have been discovered. Rounding appears to conform to the proposed IEEE standard P754. The arithmetic diagnosed appears to be Excellent!" Shall I beleive the results and go ahead with soft float ?. Is there any other test to verify reliability of soft float ?. Thanks and Regards Jabir [1] http://www.netlib.org/paranoia/paranoia.c
