On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 17:58 +0100, R. Diez wrote: > I cannot think of a good reason why we should invest our (little) time > implementing a configuration setting that no-one should be using.
Hi R Diez, You misunderstand the primary role of Or1ksim. It is not intended to narrowly model one particular implementation, but to allow architects to explore a wide range of architectures. I can think of at least one use case, where I would particularly want to set explicit values in registers. And that is where I am exploring what the implications are of an architecture that initializes registers on reset. > I think we should change or1ksim's behaviour to initialise all general > purpose registers with random values and let all broken tests fail from > now on. or1ksim's default settings should encourage writing good tests > that run everywhere as per the architecture specification. Random values in particular are a nightmare default. Most of the time, whatever happens I want to be able to repeat it. Introducing Heisenbugs by default is the last thing any sane person should do! > Fixing such broken test cases is straightforward and usually worthwhile. > If anybody has such a huge test suite that it's not worth fixing (who > would that be?), then let he write a patch for or1ksim to add such a > configuration setting. I'm all for fixing the test cases. It is the change to the tool itself I am arguing about. > I'll be posting here patches to fix or1ksim's test suite in this respect. Excellent. thanks for your hard work and look forward to seeing the patches. Jeremy -- Tel: +44 (1590) 610184 Cell: +44 (7970) 676050 SkypeID: jeremybennett Email: [email protected] Web: www.embecosm.com _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
