Rockbox Development > Starting Development and Compiling

Rockbox: working CFLAGS

<< < (2/2)

saratoga:
You should probably compare boost numbers while playing a given file to see if theres a real improvement.

Robertek:
I know that this will not enhance battery a lot, but it could make less cpu usage - less cpu time, but you are right , than it could use more of other resources like ram. So it is questionable..
But it could make the player more faster, of course it behaves well now, with rockbox:)

nirax:
seems that the behavior changed since the post of the thread was started.

i can compile with:

export GCCOPTS=-W -Wall -Wundef -O2 -march=armv4t -mtune=arm7tdmi -nostdlib -ffreestanding -Wstrict-prototypes -mcpu=arm7tdmi -mlong-calls -fomit-frame-pointer -Wno-pointer-sign -pipe -fweb -frename-registers

and it works fine so far. im going to write/port some performance testing app if there is no one existing yet
to have some numbers. mabe the FPS display of mplayer will be sufficient, although im quite confident there will be not much of a change visible there.

nirax:
i just see that mtune and mcpu are both in the line. mtune is deprecated, so skip it.

one question though, did anyone here tried compilation also with the ARMV5 compiler ?
From my experience its output is faster and has a much smaller binary footprint than GCC

nls:
This is pointless unless you have a benchmark to test the speed differences with.
After playing around quite a bit with gcc, I have seen many places where more
optimizations enabled leads to slower code.
Most codecs and a few plugins (like mpegplayer) have their own makefiles and set their own O levels.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page