It was during a page table walk so I'm sure it wasn't an initialization ordering issue. I'll look at it again when I revisit FS in the timing simple CPU.
Gabe Ali Saidi wrote: > My guess is that you might be checking on it before it's set up. In > the constructor is probably too early. If you grep for MemoryMode > you'll see where/how it gets changed. > > Ali > > On Feb 28, 2009, at 10:49 PM, nathan binkert wrote: > > >> I think that Steve is the only one who both pays attention to the list >> and might understand what's going on here. >> >> Nate >> >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Gabe Black <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I was working on getting the X86_FS working with the timing simple >>> CPU as well as it does with atomic, and found that when called in my >>> page table walker, sys->getMemoryMode() is very definitely giving the >>> wrong answer. I suspect there's something I didn't do quite right >>> when >>> setting up the system object, but since part of that is in python I >>> wasn't sure how it all went together. Why might my system object >>> think >>> it's in atomic mode when it's actually in timing? How does it end up >>> assuming one mode or the other? >>> >>> Gabe >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
