<ul><li>'''#ubuntu-arm''' (persia)<br /></li><li>'''#gentoo-embedded''' (solar and steev_)</li></ul> SENECA: '''Tae Hee (Tyler) Lee''' <blockquote>My fellow classmate, a great and helpful guy working on the [http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/To_Thumb_or_Not_to_Thumb To Thumb or Not to Thumb Project]. We both have the same project objective; to benchmark a system. (his project deals with 16-bit codes) We share access to the test builder cdot-beagleXM-0-3 and even ran tests both at the same time that could have toasted it! Tyler helped me out with with scripting/'makefiles' and using 'screen'.</blockquote>

This project aims to test the significance of technologies that exist in '''ARMv7What the project is all about'''  Currently, Fedora only supports armv5tel codes. With the release of armv7 architecture (with beagleboardXM) Fedora-ARM is pressed with the decision of upgrading its Fedora Universe to use armv7 code. While it seems logical, re-compiling the whole Fedora package is a strenuous task. Before deciding to recompile the whole universe, Fedora-ARM can test if optimizing certain system binaries to use armv7 architecture by conducting different benchmark techniques and compiler optimisationprovides significant performance difference against the currently used armv5tel codes. The test would clarify if armv7 codes used for armv7 hardware really improves system performance.  This project covers performance comparison between '''ARMv5''' aims for that sole purpose. By running a benchmark and '''ARMv7'''. Results can help the compiler optimizations on system binaries, Fedora-ARM community can contrast both technologies and use the results to decide on how if it's really worth to go about with recompile the compilation whole Fedora Universe to use armv7 codes. Below is a list of the fedora universe on ARMv7 devicestechnologies by armv7.

There are currently 2 '''ARMv7''' (beagleboard & beagleboard XM) builders in the Fedora ARM farm. These builders are running builds on '''ARMv5tel''' architecture which means optimum performance is not achieved.This project will focus in using the beagleboardXM builder <code>cdot-beagleXM-0-3</code>

 ===Specifications for the cdot-beagleboardXM-0-3 SPECIFICATIONSbuilder===

[[Image:Cdot-beaglexm-0-3Bb.jpg|thumb|right|500px400px|cdot-beagleboardXM-0-3 builder]]

<blockquote>[http://beagleboard.org/hardware-xM beagleboardXM hardware page]</blockquote><br /> '''cat /proc/version'''<br />

 '''cat /proc/cpuinfo'''<br />

<blockquote>glibc-2.11-2.fa3.armv5tel(Subjected for upgrade to armv7)</blockquote>

Any packages compiled for the beagleboards can be installed without optimization. So far, in the case of <code>cdot-beagleXM-0-3</code> packages are compiled without it. Without optimizations, software installed in a system can only run on sub-optimal performance. In order to make use of ARMv7 architecture features, editing the <code>CFLAGS</code> to use <code>arm</code> optimization options will let the compiler attempt to improve the performance and/or code size of the program; resulting in a more efficient/faster system.

*Check if armv7 optimization options and armv5tel optimization options differ significantly in system program performance boost

It is proven that armv7 and armv5 arch optimizations provide the same level of performance especially when running C library dependent programs on cdot-beagleXM-0-3 builder. Why is it possible when armv7 architecture is supposed to be better than armv5tel? One big answer is that the system tested was built to use an [[Imagehttp:graph//en.wikipedia.png|widthpx| ]org/wiki/Application_binary_interface ABI]called "softfp". Although beagleboardXM (cortex-a8)supports the "hard floating-point" ABI, The Fedora-ARM currently can't afford to waste time building a system that supports "hardfp" solely on test purposes. To make things a little clearer, cdot-beagleXM-0-3 can't use the technology offered by ARM-cortex-a8 processor because of how the system (down to the lowest level) is built.

The benchmark graph shows that optimization increased the overall performance of cdot-beagleXM-0-3 by '''36%'''. The results for both armv5tel and armv7 optimizations ARM Floating point is a pretty big topic, provided are the same. (It's safe some links to assume that the armv5tel glibc impacts the performance of C library dependent programs such as Dhrystone). The data gathered can be used as a reference for conducting 0.2 project releasehelp you understand more.

===[0.23] Install Future project prospect===The previous test didn't leave an opportunity for me to work on [0.3] Release. Although the comparison is done, and the results are gathered; One last option to test armv7 glibc and re-run technology still remains: "Rebuild everything to use a hardfp ABI!" This recommendation would undoubtedly reveal the performance difference of armv7 against armv5tel; but at the benchmark using dhrystone===same time would be a big project "not suitable for a single person to work on".

===I hope that this project page including the [0http://zenit.3senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/Dhrystone_howto Dhrystone How To]===page can be of use for future ARM based project reference.