Can someone explain what is the difference between armhf and armv7-neon-hf core sources?
Stock firmware provides armhf, but everywhere armv7-neon-hf is mentioned.
Really confuse what should work better or more optimized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#Advanced_SIMD_(NEON)
http://linux-sunxi.org/R16
as gs support neon, use it if possible
Then why stock is armhf? I just don’t understand. Is there any reason?
retroarch source seem using __ARM_NEON__ define, who must be auto defined by gcc when cpu have neon support, so retroarch core may use neon
for external core who wasn’t compiled under the gs, they may or not have neon support, choice the right one and do some test
edit > kernel seem have two config for neon, one of them is enabled,
also https://stackoverflow.com/a/37056771/1910035 may suggest adding more parameters to enable neon defines
Still not clear to me. Let me explain my question in more details.
Stock retroarch.cfg has http://buildbot.libretro.com/nightly/linux/armhf/latest/ core source
Stock emulators in “Retro Games” directory either stand-alone versions or cores from https://github.com/cuu/emulators source
In “RetroArch Megathread” post suggested source for cores is http://buildbot.libretro.com/nightly/linux/armv7-neon-hf/latest/
You trying to explain technical aspects, and I want to understand the meaning. Should I use one or another, or should I test cores from both sources individually because neither of them made/compiled specifically for GameShell?
neon add new possibility to the cpu, so if you use core with his support it will be more optimized
as gameshell support neon try using neon core
Ok, I see. Thank you!
But still don’t understand why stock firmware not using this source, seems not logic
2 Likes