This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: NAND technical review
- From: John Dallaway <john at dallaway dot org dot uk>
- To: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at jifvik dot org>
- Cc: Rutger Hofman <rutger at cs dot vu dot nl>, eCos developers <ecos-devel at ecos dot sourceware dot org>, Ross Younger <ross at impropriety dot org dot uk>
- Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:18:13 +0000
- Subject: Re: NAND technical review
- References: <4AC6218C.email@example.com> <4ACB4B58.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4ACC0722.email@example.com> <4ACCC13F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4AD69BBE.email@example.com> <4AD73386.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4AD7CD29.email@example.com> <4ADC777F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4ADD2CAB.email@example.com> <4ADDAC7A.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4ADE679D.email@example.com> <4ADEFCFE.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4AE1B864.email@example.com> <4AE1CAD0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4AF91026.email@example.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:03:02 +0000, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> I think I really have to get some comparative measurements on code size
> and performance at least. It's tricky when there is no common hardware.
> Not even a common architecture (given Jurgen's SAM9260 port isn't
> public). And no common chip even then. I think that unless someone is
> willing to port one or other to a common piece of hardware, then the
> only recourse is the synthetic target.
> I've now built both implementations and run all tests successfully on
> synth for both. Now I "just" need to finish porting rwbenchmark.c to (R).
Do you see any opportunity to complete this review in the near future?