My main objection to the change is that it is not worth the time. It is taking a sledgehammer to a bug that only requires a minor tweak. There is a lot of downstream code that will be impacted by a change that doesn't provide any real benefit. To do what you want the right way, would require making the CheckTable and RubyTesters separate SimObjects and then instantiating them appropriately. Why go through all that trouble?
What separate code are you concerned about? The specific code to handle the tester in Ruby (C++) has nothing to do with whether there is one RubyTester or multiple RubyTesters. Brad -----Original Message----- From: gem5-dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nilay Vaish Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 1:35 PM To: gem5 Developer List Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2749: cpu: testers: rubytest: fix the test On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Beckmann, Brad wrote: > The tester has always been a single object (since 1999!). The tester > works in a coordinated fashion to instigate races. It does not > operate as separate independent objects. > Brad, even if it has been a single object for a long time, I still believe it is not the right way. If we have multiple objects, we should still be able to make them work in a coordinated fashion by letting them share some portion of memory. I did this by marking the CheckTable static, but I am willing to make it common to every tester object in a different fashion. Can you explain what may prevent us from coordinating multiple tester objects? Again, I do not want to create separate code for testing and for simulation. There are several places in ruby where we do this and I think we should do away with them, instead of further spreading this approach. -- Nilay _______________________________________________ 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
