Jason R Thorpe <thorpej@zembu.com> writes:
> It also turned out that the softfloat-in-libc turned out to be a fair bit
> faster than kernel fp emulation for *statically linked* binaries, but MUCH
> much slower for *dynamically linked* binaries.  Obviously, the performance
> of kernel fp emulation is the same for statically linked or dynamically
> linked binaries.

Has anyone characterized why this is?

It's ... very counterintuitive, at least to me, that a couple of
branches would be slower than a kernel trep...


cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.