I don't object to making it a personal patch, but if it's not hard to put it back without the negative characteristics, then I say it's good to put back, for exactly the reason Tom says. That's pretty much how I used it - "these results say what? ohhhh....wrong patch applied when making the binary."
Lisa On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Thomas Wenisch <[email protected]> wrote: > FWIW, I have found it to be very valuable to have a repository revision > number in simulation outputs. Weeks later, when you try to figure out which > crazy version of the code generated some random set of results, it can be > extremely helpful for tracking things down. > > I would be a fan of fixing this with a compile-time option that is off by > default as Nate suggests. > > Regards, > -Thomas Wenisch > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:03 PM, nathan binkert wrote: > > >> Annoying, I responded to this yesterday with the wrong account and got a > >> list rejection that I didn't notice until now. > >> > >> Anyhow, thanks - I'll just make my own personal patch to get it back, I > can > >> see how extra regressions would be annoying. > > > > If you (and others) like it, it could be a compile time option. We > > could probably also fix it if we handled it more like date.cc is > > handled. That shouldn't be too hard. > > > > Nate > > _______________________________________________ > > gem5-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
