On 17 January 2012 01:04, 陳韋任 <che...@iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: >> > What is the way out of this? The reason I need TCG code is because my >> > project work is to write a semantics for TCG micro-operations and then >> > compare my semantics with a semantics for ARM instructions being written by >> > someone else. To test my semantics, I need the corresponding TCG code for >> > several different multi-threaded ARM binaries. >> >> Why does this have to be a multi-threaded binary? In the multithreaded >> case, the instructions executed by QEMU won't be deterministic (it will >> depend on how the host OS schedules the multiple threads) so it's going >> to be hard to compare a long trace output to something else. > > I guess Rajat's goal is to compare the "semantics" of TCG ops and ARM binary, > therefore the non-deterministic might not be the issue. Or he want to use > "semantics" to solve the non-deterministic problem.
But if you're looking at the semantics at a level where you don't care about the non-determinism of the threading, you might just as well look at them at an individual instruction or TB level, in which case a single threaded program is just as good and less confusing, surely? -- PMM
