Lpc2000

At 05:21 PM 2/27/05 +0000, Paul Curtis wrote:
> > > Before spending too much time you should at least take a look at
> > the eembc
> > > benchmarks.  They've spent a lot of effort attempting to put
> > together a
> > > representative set of loads for benchmarking for embedded
> > applications.
> >
> > I'll definitely take look at eembc, the time spent will be not so
> > much to consider it. As I wrote this will not pretend to be the WMPBA
> > (worlds-most-preciese-benchmark-for-arms ;) but will be useful for us
> > and probably many others.
>
>The full suite EEMBC benchmarks are too big for many small micros, such
>as the LPC2104, I think.

Certainly a concern, but I just took a look at the results for an 
ST20  (under automotive and industrial) and code sizes for the various 
benchmarks ranged from 1106 bytes to 8505 bytes.  It's not clear how much 
RAM was needed but some of the benchmarks would need very little.  The 
matrix ones might need a fair amount but I would not be surprised if they 
fit as well. hmm, 4x4 matrixes in double precision, say 1/2 doz takes less 
than 1K, that covers a lot of the ground required in an embedded system.

And there are also the 8/16 bit benchmarks which are likely to be more 
considerate of memory concerns.

In any case the tests could certainly be done even if a test or two had to 
be omitted due to ram limitations.  The bigger issue would be access to the 
source code since that is only available to members.  Whether it's worth 
the effort for someone to build a more open alternative.....


>--
>Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
>CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and (soon) MAXQ processors
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

" 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself.  There are always restrictions,
be they legal, genetic, or physical.  If you don't believe me, try to
chew a radio signal. "

                         Kelvin Throop, III