> On 2010-07-10 08:52:15, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > > src/sim/sim_object.cc, line 275 > > <http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/51/diff/1/?file=757#file757line275> > > > > I'd prefer a more informative message like "Error: setMaxInsts called > > on non-CPU" (and same with the following function). > > > > There's a broader question of whether this is how we want to expose > > subclass-specific methods to Python... I don't have any great ideas for > > alternatives, but Nate might. > > Timothy Jones wrote: > I can definitely alter the error message here and can make alterations to > the way this is exposed to python, if necessary.
Thanks... changing the error message is all I need to be happy. I'd like to hear Nate's opinion on whether it's good to end up with a bunch of class-specific methods on SimObject, and what the alternatives might be, but until he speaks up you can leave the rest of it like it is. > On 2010-07-10 08:52:15, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > > src/sim/eventq.hh, line 489 > > <http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/51/diff/1/?file=755#file755line489> > > > > I don't like getting rid of this assertion... it's actually pretty > > useful in knowing when something's not right. You should add some code > > upstream somewhere to skip adding the event if we're already past it. > > Timothy Jones wrote: > So the main problem with this assertion is that the event I'm trying to > add is triggered by an instruction count, not a certain Tick. I'm happy to > either add code somewhere else to avoid adding old events or to put this > assertion back in and find a new way of adding instruction-count-based > events. Which would be the preferred option? I understand that... but even with instructions, I think you'd have the same problem, which is that you're scheduling an event that's never going to get triggered. So if you want a callback after 1000 insts are executed, but 2000 insts have already been executed, it seems like you'd still need to check somewhere before you call schedule() and realize that there's no point in calling schedule() because this event is not going to happen. I don't think instruction-based events should be treated differently. - Steve ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/51/#review65 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 2010-07-09 18:14:44, Timothy Jones wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/51/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2010-07-09 18:14:44) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Summary > ------- > > CPU: Add functions to get the number of executed instructions and set the > maximum number of instructions to execute to the CPUs and allow them to be > called from python. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/cpu/BaseCPU.py 249f174e6f37 > src/cpu/base.hh 249f174e6f37 > src/cpu/base.cc 249f174e6f37 > src/cpu/o3/cpu.hh 249f174e6f37 > src/cpu/simple/base.hh 249f174e6f37 > src/python/swig/sim_object.i 249f174e6f37 > src/sim/eventq.hh 249f174e6f37 > src/sim/sim_object.hh 249f174e6f37 > src/sim/sim_object.cc 249f174e6f37 > > Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/51/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Timothy > > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
