Any update on a diff korey? We need to get this done and out the door.
Nate
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Korey Sewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can we talk to Jaidev? Do you have his e-mail address?
> Sure, I can email him...
>
>> I'd like to
>> get this figured out. Do they have updated code perhaps?
> I'm pretty sure that is the appropriate fix. Full coverage of the
> shadow-sets in regression testing wasnt available previously so like I
> said before this is a case of implementing every instruction on the
> MIPS32 ISA specification for possible future cases then "this code
> works and now it's broken".
>
>>> Wrgpr and Rdgpr are functions for the sole purpose of having shadow
>>> set register compatibility.
>> It seems that these instructions are the only one that use those
>> functions which seems decidedly odd.
> It's not odd, it's just how the MIPS32 ISA is defined. If you would
> like to read/write from a shadow set that's not the current set than
> you must use these instructions.
>
>>> if (intReg >= NumIntArchRegs * NumShadowRegSets) {
>> Is this condition correct? Should we just be checking if intReg >=
>> NumIntArchRegs?
> Nope, I'm not agreeing to that. So okay, maybe I should just drum up a
> patch then .... :). The Number of Registers in the IntRegFile is the
> number of architectural registers + HI/LO registers + DSP registers...
> Those need to be replicated per shadow set. If you just say
> NumIntArchRegs * ShadowRegSets you mess up the mapping. That should
> still be intReg < NumIntRegs.
>
> The rest of your comments have some merit but like I said before it's
> not like this shadow set code was ever *working* as much as it was
> just coexisting in the code. So what we are doing here is trying to
> fix something that has no test case in the 1st place.
>
> What I can do is fix it and make it consistent with the rest of M5 and
> the MIPS32 ISA and then email Jaidev to see if there are any updates
> to the shadow set code. I thought this was a gcc 4.3 warning problem
> but obviously not. I thought we had warnings in the compiles
> previously but I guess the current goal for "stable" is "warning-free"
> code?
>
> In terms of there regression tests, its really not something they can
> handover in terms of "here's the code". Needless to say, I cant go
> into exactly what they have but it's not a list of files that you can
> cross-compile to any architecture rather a large test suite that
> exhaustively tests every instruction ...
>
> --
> ----------
> Korey L Sewell
> Graduate Student - PhD Candidate
> Computer Science & Engineering
> University of Michigan
> _______________________________________________
> m5-dev mailing list
> m5-dev@m5sim.org
> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
