I agree on 1-3 and the list of "poorly supported" ISAs (maybe "minimally supported" would be a better term).
On 4, I'm against pulling the tests for O3, since some of the things that O3 implements are only stressed by these ISAs. (SPARC and register windows, for example.) WRT minor, I think Alpha is the only ISA on the list that minor supports, so I don't see a big gain from removing those tests either, esp. if we've eliminated the long-running SPEC ones. Steve On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Jason Lowe-Power <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > My thoughts are inline below. > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:04 AM Andreas Sandberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > Gabe's heroic effort to refresh the reference stats (thanks Gabe!) have > > once again highlighted issues in the current test regime. > > > > My impression is that some of the affected tests are only marginally > > useful. Especially for architecture that are largely unmaintained. I > > don't want to rekindle the discussion about retiring ISAs. However, I > > would suggest that we reduce the amount of time we spend testing these > > ISAs. In particular, I would like to see these changes: > > > > 1. Remove all SPEC-based tests for poorly supported ISAs > > > > Yes. In fact, I think that in the medium-term we should remove all > spec-based tests since we can't distribute the binaries. > > > > > 2. Remove stat diffing for all remaining tests for poorly supported ISAs. > > > > Sure. The stats for each component should be ISA-independent and covered by > other, better supported, ISAs. The only thing we would lose here is stats > diffing when these ISAs are updated (very rarely). > > > > 3. Remove stat diffing for the learning gem5 tests. We mainly want to > > make sure that these scripts can be run. > > > > Definitely! I thought this was already done... > > > > > 4. Consider removing O3 (and minor?) tests for poorly supported ISAs > > > > We've said this many times... we should construct the matrix of what ISAs x > CPU models x coherence protocols we support. If it's marked as supported on > the matrix, we should test it. I don't know if these models are currently > "supported" for any of these ISAs. > > > > > I would argue that "poorly supported ISAs" would be the following: > > * SPARC > > * POWER > > * MIPS > > * ALPHA? > > > > Seems reasonable to me. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > //Andreas > > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy > the > > information in any medium. Thank you. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
