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
> 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.