My first reaction to this was "TEST YOUR CHANGES" My second reaction was that this probably was tested using the regressions without realizing they don't actually use fs.py, so it's forgivable.
My third reaction was that since se.py, fs.py, etc. are non-trivial pieces of code that are used verbatim probably more than they're used as examples, so it would be a good idea to actually test them. My fourth reaction was that these scripts seem overly complicated to me, and that probably makes mistakes like this a lot easier to make than is really necessary. Gabe Gabe Black wrote: > changeset f2b4d8bea5d3 in /z/repo/m5 > details: http://repo.m5sim.org/m5?cmd=changeset;node=f2b4d8bea5d3 > description: > Config: Fix fs.py's call to CacheConfig.config_cache. > > diffstat: > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > configs/example/fs.py | 4 ++-- > > diffs (15 lines): > > diff -r c6951099a1cb -r f2b4d8bea5d3 configs/example/fs.py > --- a/configs/example/fs.py Fri Feb 26 18:14:48 2010 -0800 > +++ b/configs/example/fs.py Sat Feb 27 18:52:57 2010 -0800 > @@ -121,9 +121,9 @@ > if options.script is not None: > test_sys.readfile = options.script > > -CacheConfig.config_cache(options, system) > +test_sys.cpu = [TestCPUClass(cpu_id=i) for i in xrange(np)] > > -test_sys.cpu = [TestCPUClass(cpu_id=i) for i in xrange(np)] > +CacheConfig.config_cache(options, test_sys) > > if options.caches or options.l2cache: > test_sys.bridge.filter_ranges_a=[AddrRange(0, Addr.max)] > _______________________________________________ > 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
