That is exactly why I was concerned. I tried to find the micro-ops for the jmp instruction to see if there was some type of format that read or wrote to memory, but I couldn't find anything.
Scott On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Steve Reinhardt via gem5-dev < [email protected]> wrote: > Tough to say... my gut feeling is that the numeric PC is more likely to be > correct, but on the other hand, the PC appears to map not only to a > different function, but to an instruction that's not even a memory access, > which makes it odd that it is generating a request packet. > > Steve > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Scott Lerner via gem5-dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I am trying to do some validation of gem5 by looking at the output memory > > traces and comparing them to the static-compiled binary. > > > > What I have seen is that in the memory trace there will be an output line > > like: > > "5228735114000: system.l1_cntrl3.sequencer: Ruby Hit Callback: Read, > Thread > > number=3, Pkt Address=0x3ff250c0,Pkt Size=8, Func=pthread_barrier_wait, > > PC=0x402088" > > > > But when looking at the dump of the binary, the PC 0x402088 maps to a > > different function: > > 00000000004016d0 <lu>: > > ... > > 402083: 0f 8e f4 00 00 00 jle 40217d <lu+0xaad> > > ... > > 0000000000402740 <OneSolve>: > > > > My question is should I trust the PC or the function name? Is there a way > > to verify that either one is correct? I am using the gem5 from February > > last year. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Scott > > Ph.D. candidate > > Drexel University > > _______________________________________________ > > gem5-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
