Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.lang.c    |    Meh, in C you gotta define EVERYTHING    |    243,242 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 241,873 of 243,242    |
|    Michael S to Dan Cross    |
|    Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C    |
|    09 Nov 25 11:46:00    |
      From: already5chosen@yahoo.com              On Sat, 8 Nov 2025 00:00:06 -0000 (UTC)       cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:              >       > >I'd say, if you (SOC designer) absolutely have to play these games,       > >just use Cortex-M4.       >       > Sometimes you really do need an M7 class part.       >       > - Dan C.       >              Somehow I suspect that [at the same clock frequency] M4 could access       uncached memory faster that M7. May be, even significantly faster.              Unfortunately, info about M7 instructions timing does not appear to be       public.              If one needs something like DP floating or when uncached accesses are       only small part of the job and the rest of the load is compute       -intensive then I can see how M7 could look attractive vs M4.       But personally in such case I'd start to look for non-Cortex-M solution.       May be R4, although I don't like it. May be A5. In huge SoCs of sort       Scott is working on - A34 or even 510. Plus, another M4 to handle more       typical MCU tasks.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca