----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1152/#review2570 -----------------------------------------------------------
The fp microops are pretty underdeveloped, but my impression was that there wasn't a lot of partial updating of the FP condition codes, and that would make this unnecessary. Could you please check how they're updated and report back? If setting the flags are optional but an all or nothing sort of thing, we don't need to add this code. - Gabe Black On April 21, 2012, 1:15 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1152/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 21, 2012, 1:15 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 8960:5752699105b1 > --------------------------- > X86: Add ext and cc fields to FP microops > The cc and ext fields in integer microops hold the flags the microop is > going to read and write respectively. These fields are being provided in > FP microops. Later on this would help in deciding at run time whether or > not certain flags need to be read or written. Currently these are set to 0. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/arch/x86/insts/microfpop.hh 0bba1c59b4d1 > src/arch/x86/isa/microops/fpop.isa 0bba1c59b4d1 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1152/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Nilay Vaish > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
