On Fri, March 8, 2013 1:59 pm, Beckmann, Brad wrote: > This is a research simulator. I don't understand why we would remove > functionally that allows us to perform high-level boundary experiments. > For example, we currently leverage the backing store to determine the > performance of a system if a certain subset of acceses take X cycles. > Maintaining that feature is important to me.
I am not able to understand how a functional copy of the memory is any different from ruby's copy. Is it not that any feature that can be implemented with a functional copy, can also be implemented with ruby's copy as well? > > We have a ton of code that we currently apply on top of the public tree. > Maintaining them is a pain whenever there is a substantial system-wide > change in the underlying infrastructure. The real problem is the amount > of code we have, not your specific change to the clocks. > > So how big us your bug fix? How bad is the bug? I don't mind you checking > in your fix as long as it doesn't touch a lot of Ruby files or change the > general APIs for a minor bug. > I posted the changes to gem5's review board today. As per my understanding the bug (or the set of bugs) would become apparent when creating Or restoring from a checkpoint. -- Nilay _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
