-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/777/#review1410
-----------------------------------------------------------


I'm pretty sure I wanted to get rid of this before, but it turned out it was a 
different issue. I think korey explained it previously, maybe he remembers.


- Ali


On 2011-07-11 05:02:18, Gabe Black wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/777/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2011-07-11 05:02:18)
> 
> 
> Review request for Default, Ali Saidi, Gabe Black, Steve Reinhardt, and 
> Nathan Binkert.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> O3: Don't assert that nothing is pending in the decoder at the start of a 
> cycle.
> 
> The decoder clears out incoming instructions from fetch on a squash, but there
> may be instructions on the wire incoming from fetch which don't get cleared.
> Because the decoder is considered squashing, it doesn't actually process any
> more instructions as they come in. The instructions that were on their way
> would then sit in the "insts" list until the next cycle, tripping qn assert.
> It's ok for them to be there in that case because the decoder will just ignore
> them. Because "insts" is a queue and can't be scanned to verify that all
> instructions left on it are squashed, this change simply gets rid of the 
> check.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/cpu/o3/decode_impl.hh 9f3fedee88e2 
> 
> Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/777/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gabe
> 
>

_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to