On 01/28/12 09:11, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Ali Saidi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Jan 28, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Gabe Black wrote: >> >>>>> My discussion of the general compile-time mechanism is just to >> emphasize >>>>> that the maintenance of this one aspect of the current SE/FS >> difference is >>>>> a stopgap replacement for this alternate ideal, not a perpetuation of >> the >>>>> now-meaningless distinction that Gabe has worked so hard to eradicate, >> so >>>>> that he doesn't accuse me of bitterly clinging to the past... >>>> Ok, but I'd really hate to see this delay Gabe long enough that we >>>> don't ever get it into the tree. Gabe, do you think it'd be easy to >>>> cook up what Steve is talking about? (Or does it already work in your >>>> tree?) >>>> >>> I'll try adding an option that leaves out the devices since I assume >>> that's where the extra time is coming from. I'm thinking if you set >>> NO_DEVICES on the scons command line it will leave the devices out of >>> the build. That won't be set by default on anything since the same build >>> is used for both SE and FS and it doesn't make sense as a default, but >>> if you're using it for SE style stuff and build time is affected enough >>> for you to find out about that option, then it'll be available. There >>> may be complications so no promises. It may also not close recover the >>> build time, but I expect it will. >> I think that adding these sorts of things is going to create more >> confusion that it's worth. We're going to have people who compile with >> NO_DEVICE and don't understand why they can't run full-system code (or the >> random error we're going to produce about not being able to create a >> simobject) and we're going to have a group of people who don't know >> NO_DEVICE exists and so they never use it. A 30% compile time increase the >> first time you compile "SE" mode doesn't seem bad. The device models >> shouldn't need re-compile, so any further development for SE activities >> shouldn't effect them. This simples something that confuses a reasonable >> fraction of users (What is SE and FS?) and speeds up compiles tremendously >> for those of us who compile multiple binaries frequently. > > If, as Gabe suggests, we maintain some of the SE conditional compilation > flags as NO_DEVICES, but don't expose that flag directly by including it in > any of the "official" named builds, then I expect that only people who know > what they're doing will ever use it. So I don't see it adding to the > confusion. > > Also, as I mentioned before, the argument about "it's only the first time > you compile" only really cuts it if scons magically becomes both bug-free > and omniscient. > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
I would be adding this on the end of my changes, so why don't I get what I have ready to go (implement Ali's review suggestions) and then we can hash this out forever and not hold things up. Gabe _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
