I just noticed this string of emails, and coincidentally I just posted all of Vince's patches to the Review Board except one (the last) which had been addressed in another changeset. I'd been using them for a little bit Vince to get some 2k6 workloads going, but not all of 2k6 works but they certainly fix some benchmarks to at least complete and have correct reference outputs.
When they pass the review board, I will be committing them in your name. Thanks for your work, and hopefully your patches will finally get into the tree! Lisa On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Gabe Black <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/01/11 06:36, Vince Weaver wrote: > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Gabe Black wrote: > >> Second, this is actually an interesting coincidence because I was just > about > >> to start looking at getting spec2006 to work better. A guy named Vince > >> Weaver did some work testing our x86 implementation a while ago, and he > has > >> some patches that haven't yet made it into the code base. You can find > those > >> here: > >> > >> http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~vince/projects/m5/ > > I'm still lurking here. I've been meaning to clean up those pages and > > make sure the patches still compile, just haven't had time. > > > > One issue is that I think it was decided that the syscall code needed a > > major re-write, so there was some resistance to merging syscall emulation > > patches that didn't fix the underlying problem. > > > > The other main issue with spec2k/spec2k6 is x87 support. By compiling > > with -msse2 to force SSE code generation you can avoid most of the > current > > unimplemented instruction errors, but there are a few x87 instructions > > (mostly transcendental functions) that will still be generated. My > > patches address enough of those to get spec2k going, but I don't think an > > official set of x87 uops were ever specified, which makes the minimal x87 > > supoort a bit of a hack. > > > > Vince > > _______________________________________________ > > m5-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users > > I'm pretty sure gcc uses sse by default when it's building a 64 bit > binary because it assumes if a CPU can run 64 bit code it also has SSE. > If you're running 32 bit binaries (which I don't necessarily recommend > but should work) then using -msse2 is a good idea. Spec2k has been > working fine for a while now, at least for the binaries I could get to > build in a modern environment, and are part of our nightly regressions. > It could be, though, that recompiling them with a more recent gcc and/or > glibc would pull in some of these system calls or instructions which > aren't supported. In any case, it would be good to get those patches on > review board. There are a few issues with some of them, but once those > are fixed I'd like to get them into the tree. > > Gabe > > Gabe > _______________________________________________ > m5-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users > >
_______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
