Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 04/05/17 18:38, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >
>>> - 5, /* Max cond insns. */
>>> + 2, /* Max cond insns. */
>>
>>> This parameter is also used for A32 code. Is that really the right
>>> number there as well?
>>
>> Yes, this parameter has always been the same for ARM and Thumb-2.
>
> I know that. I'm questioning whether that number (2) is right when on
> ARM. It seems very low to me, especially when branches are unpredictable.
Why does it seem low? Benchmarking showed 2 was the best value for modern
cores. The same branch predictor is used, so the same settings should be used
for ARM and Thumb-2.
Wilco
