----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1455/#review3784 -----------------------------------------------------------
In general I would prefer an approach where unique simulation requirements were handled by a unique top-level script; originally files like se.py were intended merely to be examples that would be customized as needed (hence the directory name "configs/example"). If the configuration code were a bit more modular, such that those example files were only a handful of lines of code (not 100+), I would push harder to keep that vision. If I'm the only one that feels that way, though, I won't oppose this. configs/common/Simulation.py <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1455/#comment3690> Should this be 'testsys' not 'test_sys'? - Steve Reinhardt On Oct. 23, 2012, 11:22 a.m., Lluís Vilanova wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1455/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 23, 2012, 11:22 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Let the user execute a file just before 'Simulation.run'. > > This file can be used, for example, to set parameters that are not available > through the command-line options. > > Patch was applied on top of latest development version, so I don't understand > how this can fail (my previous patches in the MQ do not touch Options.py). > > > Diffs > ----- > > configs/common/Options.py f634a34f2f0b > configs/common/Simulation.py f634a34f2f0b > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1455/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Lluís Vilanova > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
