> On Oct. 20, 2016, 2:11 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > This is fine with me. However, I think this is just bandaging a broken > > system. IMO, we need to greatly simplify (maybe even totally remove) the > > command-line parameters in config/common. > > > > What I've been telling people is this: gem5's interface is not the command > > line: it is Python scripts. You shouldn't think about "what options should > > I pass to gem5" when you are using it, you should instead say "what Python > > script should I write". > > > > My opinion is our scripts in configs/ should do two things: > > 1. Break out commonalities between all Python configuration scripts. > > Things like DDR3 memory, basic cache coherence protocols, specific ARM CPU > > configurations, full system setup BS, etc. > > 2. Give some basic examples of how to use Python configuration scripts, > > and give some starting points for new users to pick up gem5. > > > > Sorry, this is off-topic for this patch, but it's something that's been > > bothering me for years now. This idea that many of our users have that you > > can just call gem5 with the "right" command line paramters to simulate what > > you need is harmful. It's harmful both to gem5 development as it makes > > these config scripts less maintainable (e.g., Ruby's scripts), and, in the > > worst case, produces bad architecture research since users can ignore > > important parameters. > > > > /rant. > > > > This isn't really a review of this patch, but I just wanted to say I don't > > think it's worth much of our time to try to bandage the current > > "Options.py" configuration style. Though, I'm not volunteering to fix this > > either. BTW, I think the ARM config scripts in configs/examples/arm are a > > step in the right direction, though I think they could be taken even > > further to make them cleaner and more maintainable. > > > > Either way, thanks for making these changes, Andreas. We certainly can't > > have things that are generating errors for our users in the short term.
I completely agree that this is bandaid. I merely wanted to make sure things were somewhat less broken again and that people could use the existing scripts without things blowing up. - Andreas ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3683/#review8944 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 20, 2016, 11:07 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3683/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 20, 2016, 11:07 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11688:60b7de6442f3 > --------------------------- > config: Break out base options for usage with NULL ISA > > This patch breaks out the most basic configuration options into a set > of base options, to allow them to be used also by scripts that do not > involve any actual CPUs or devices. The patch also fixes a few modules > so that they can be imported in a NULL build, and avoid dragging in > FSConfig every time Options is imported. > > > Diffs > ----- > > configs/common/CpuConfig.py b3d5f0e9e258 > configs/common/FSConfig.py b3d5f0e9e258 > configs/common/Options.py b3d5f0e9e258 > configs/common/PlatformConfig.py b3d5f0e9e258 > configs/example/garnet_synth_traffic.py b3d5f0e9e258 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3683/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
