Hello Boris,
On 04/02/21 10:08 pm, Boris Shingarov wrote:
> > The current sequence breaks 32-bit support in
> > the beginning and then restores it back towards the end.
> > Wondering if that could be a problem with the CI?
>
> I would be surprised if there is even any POWER-specific CI at all.
> The one POWER binary we had (in test-progs), was removed at c1ebdf66f. I've
> been waiting on 86222736e (which just got in) before submitting
> https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/40635
> <https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/40635> ,
> could you please code-review that? Then, we are ready to merge your e52dbcb.
Done.
>
> > The current sequence breaks 32-bit support in
> > the beginning and then restores it back towards the end.
>
> Up to you really. My guess is that when you look at how much `develop` has
> diverged in the past months, you will find keeping the sequence less of a
> thing.
>
Got it. I started rebasing against 'develop' last night and ran
into a problem with one of the branch instruction related patches.
Hopefully, I can get that fixed soon. I also noticed this recent
patch from Gabe:
commit 7bb456f02
Author: Gabe Black <gabe.bl...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Jan 24 23:16:43 2021 -0800
arch-power: Delete unused register related constants.
I was actually planning on reusing some of these constants
like here:
https://github.com/sandip4n/gem5/commit/6ffda6f4583054a9d49b90cbd67189c813bd4dae
Maybe I'll add a patch that reintroduces the relevant ones.
- Sandipan
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list -- gem5-dev@gem5.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-dev-le...@gem5.org
%(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s
