I only have access to one machine at the moment (my laptop), so if you could find two computers where this passes and doesn't at least semi-repeatably and tracediff them, I might be able figure this out in the near future.
Gabe Gabe Black wrote: > Hopefully not. I'd say it's unlikely but I definitely wouldn't say it's > impossible. For that few of instructions it might be fstat or something > like that passing through some host state which changes execution in the > guest slightly. I think I had problems with parser behaving strangely > before as well either in x86 or in SPARC, although I unfortunately don't > remember very well. I sort of remember that the regressions failed for > the same version the outputs came from and on the same machine which I > may have mentioned in a changeset comment when I reupdated them. The > reason I think uninitialized state is unlikely is that there aren't that > many microops that things are built from, and for the most part that's > about as far as the manually written C++ gets. There are a lot of moving > parts, though, so I wouldn't rule out that some combination of stuff > makes something not get initialized. > > Gabe > > Ali Saidi wrote: >> I ran a full regression of the new tree manually. The only thing that >> reported a difference was x86/parser. That particular benchmarks seems >> to change it stats by 20 instructions kind of frequently. There must >> be some uninitialized state or something about 32bit vs 64bit compiles? >> >> Ali >> >> _______________________________________________ >> m5-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
