Hi Aamir, Slight changes (e.g., less that 1%) wouldn't be too surprising as SE mode isn't always deterministic. Additionally, you're changing the number of instructions and the layout of the binary when you add instructions. So, again, slight changes wouldn't be surprising.
If the changes in simulated time are drastic, then my bet is that one of the pseudo ops is breaking your code or making it take a significantly different code path. The easiest thing is printf debugging in your simulated binary. You can make sure it is successfully executing the code you think it is by printing at the end on a successful run, for instance. Cheers, Jason On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:05 AM Muhammad Aamir via gem5-users < gem5-users@gem5.org> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I have noticed that when I am using pseudo-instructions such as: > m5_reset_stats(0,0), m5_dump_stats(0,0) and m5_rpns() i get a less number > of simulated ticks compared to when I don't use them. > > Am particularly interested in m5_rpns() as I am measuring the time > taken by a certain function, and I did notice quite a difference in the > simulated ticks when not using them > > Would someone explain me why this is so? As I am measuring performance, i > would not like such discrepancies appearing > Am running in SE mode and using the X86 architecture. > > Thanks, > Aamir > _______________________________________________ > gem5-users mailing list -- gem5-users@gem5.org > To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-users-le...@gem5.org > %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s
_______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list -- gem5-users@gem5.org To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-users-le...@gem5.org %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s
