Lpc2000

--- In lpc2100@yahoogroups.com, "lpc2100" <lpc2100@y...> wrote:
> ARM vs Thumb for Intel Strong ARM
> This paper says that mixing the ARM and Thumb minimizes the code 
size and performance penalty.

Be sure to compare like with like; using Thumb code on a cached 
processor can change the cache behaviour quite considerably - you 
may have less cache-line evictions, or you may have adverse effects 
because of interworking or long-jump veneers taking up cache lines - 
now that isn't an issue with LPC, but any documents you find *may* 
be measuring a system with memory speeds quite unlike your own.

I'm bemused by the "ARM vs Thumb for Intel Strong ARM" tag - 
StrongARM doesn't have Thumb capability.

To get back on-topic, I strongly advise profiling *your* application 
to see which functions can win you back code space if compiled as 
Thumb code without adversely affecting performance, Michael's 
figures seem to be a good first-pass estimate for general use for 
people using the gnu compiler on LPC.

Peter.