On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > > No, there is no common place. This relates to a comment I made on a >> different thread just a day or two ago, which is that we should >> restructure >> the regressions to use the code in configs/common so that there's only one >> copy of most of this kind of code, and so that it gets tested by the >> regressions. >> >> > I was actually looking for the email that you had sent, but I think I have > deleted it. So, can we not just set the option variable appropriately in > the scripts in test/configs directory and make test/run.py call fs.py or > se.py? The email I sent doesn't say a whole lot more, it's just coincidental that the same issue has come up twice in as many days from different directions (I think in that case we were bemoaning all the new config files Geoff had to create to install regressions for the checker CPU). In fact Ali's reply that just came in as I was typing echos my earlier email very closely. > > > Of course, this situation also points to the need to actually run the >> regressions using util/regress rather than just assuming the regressions >> will pass based on a few ad-hoc tests. >> >> > I agree I made a mistake. > Thanks for owning up to it. I didn't mean to rub it in too much, but there's a fine tradition of publicly harassing people that break the tree that must be upheld ;-). Steve _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
