On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Nathan Binkert <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sept. 20, 2013, 7:46 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > > I do not really see the point here. Could you be more clear around > what this "integration" would involve? In any case, I would vote not to > include the McPat source in gem5, and if it really needs to live in the > source tree, get the users that want to have it to clone/checkout in > ext/mcpat. > > I agree. Shouldn't McPAT be maintained in its own repository? Shouldn't > it just use EXTRAS? > The point is that everyone has patches/fixes etc. for McPAT, and since HP doesn't seem to be actively accepting patches and updating their version, if we host our own version then at least we can share patches amongst ourselves and not duplicate effort. I'm not sure how much of this involves gem5-specific changes vs. just general power model fixes, but there are at least plenty of the latter. Ron, Brad, Ali, and I were at the DOE ModSim workshop last week discussing this problem, and hosting our own version of McPAT seemed to be the best solution (in the near term, anyway). Another option is just to host a separate McPAT repo on repo.gem5.org. That's OK with me too. When I suggested doing this instead of putting it in ext, Ali said "why not put it in ext?", and I don't have any great answer for that. In general, we've maintained separate repos on gem5.orgprimarily because of license issues (e.g., EIO and the softfloat discussion), and that doesn't apply here. So I see the argument for putting it in ext, but I don't feel strongly about it either way. Steve _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
