---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2901/#review6573
---
Overall, it seems like there should be a better way to do this using
On June 23, 2015, 1:35 a.m., Joel Hestness wrote:
src/mem/ruby/system/Sequencer.cc, line 529
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2902/diff/1/?file=46572#file46572line529
Currently, all references to warm-up and cool-down variables should use
the static accessors,
On June 19, 2015, 3:29 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote:
Can you please expand on the commit message? I understand that these
changes are to allow multiple RubySystem instances, but some detailed
information about this should be available in the commit log.
Brandon Potter wrote:
Hello
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2902/#review6571
---
src/python/swig/pyobject.cc (line 47)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2882/
---
(Updated June 23, 2015, 12:20 p.m.)
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Thanks, Jason! This is a great start. I made a bunch of comments, and
just a few edits. I think it would be good to have a few more of the core
developers (our de facto PMC I guess) read through this before advertising
it more widely---Ali, Andreas *, Nilay, Joel, Brad, Nate, etc. I see some
On 23/06/2015 01:12, Joel Hestness wrote:
(C) seems most probable given that the changeset 10524 moved memories out
of Ruby (note in that changeset that memory checkpointing occurred in
RubySystem::serialize() AFTER the cache flush operation). Can you check
whether the RubySystem or the
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Gross, Joe wrote:
Hello,
I'm having a problem correctly running a config that was generated by using the
config ini loading mechanism. The binary was built using --with-cxx-config. It
then runs correctly and generates a config.ini file in the m5out directory
(when
Yes. We should definitely put this on the wiki when it's finalized. I
started it on Google Docs since it's easier to collaborate there. Also, I
think we should have a governance.md file (or whatever markup we want to
use) committed in the repo.
Thanks for the comments, Steve!
Jason
On Tue, Jun
On June 22, 2015, 4:57 a.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
src/mem/abstract_mem.cc, line 340
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2882/diff/1/?file=46237#file46237line340
Are you moving this because size of the packet would be zero for clean
evicts?
Indeed. We are simply checking for the transactions
A meta-process question: how do people feel about google docs vs the wiki?
Google docs is much more user-friendly, but for consistency it seems like
we'd want this on the wiki at some point.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:40 AM Steve Reinhardt ste...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Jason! This is a great
On June 22, 2015, 2:35 p.m., Jason Power wrote:
LGTM.
As an aside, since this is yet another patch that requires blanket changes
to all slicc protocols, maybe we should require the patch submitter to
include a script to update the other slicc protocols similar to how we have
a
On June 19, 2015, 5:07 p.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote:
yYes, we use the wire buffer in our protocols and oppose its removal.
(What's the opposite of the Ship It button?) Brad is on vacation today so
I'll comment on his behalf :).
Brad Beckmann wrote:
Nilay **please** when
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2911/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
Changeset
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2869/#review6578
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Nilay Vaish
On June 21, 2015, 8:05 p.m., Andreas
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2903/#review6576
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Nilay Vaish
On June 23, 2015, 1:03 a.m., Brandon
On June 19, 2015, 5:07 p.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote:
yYes, we use the wire buffer in our protocols and oppose its removal.
(What's the opposite of the Ship It button?) Brad is on vacation today so
I'll comment on his behalf :).
Brad Beckmann wrote:
Nilay **please** when
Hi Nilay,
I've looked through these but don't see any obvious special behaviors that
would apply to the SimpleNetwork deserialization. However, neither of these
have changed significantly in quite a while, so I think whatever broke was in
Network or SimpleNetwork.
Since you're the author of a
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Beckmann, Brad wrote:
Nilay,
Please be more professional when responding to questions. If you have a
particular idea on how to fix the problem, we would appreciate if you
described it rather than leaving us a trail of breadcrumbs.
First, this is the second time you
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2856/#review6569
---
Ship it!
I'm happy with this.
I agree with Nilay that the difference
* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/50.memtest/alpha/linux/memtest-ruby passed.
* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/50.vortex/alpha/tru64/simple-timing passed.
* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/70.twolf/alpha/tru64/simple-atomic passed.
*
Hello,
I'm having a problem correctly running a config that was generated by using the
config ini loading mechanism. The binary was built using --with-cxx-config. It
then runs correctly and generates a config.ini file in the m5out directory
(when configuring using python/swig). However, when
Hello All,
I have submitted a chain of patches which enables gem5 to simulate a
cluster on multiple physical hosts:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2909/
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2910/
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2912/
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2913/
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2914/
Thanks for posting, Mohammad! I will try to look your patches over later
this week.
Steve
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:05 PM Mohammad Alian al...@wisc.edu wrote:
Hello All,
I have submitted a chain of patches which enables gem5 to simulate a
cluster on multiple physical hosts:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2915/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2914/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2912/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
Nilay,
Please be more professional when responding to questions. If you have a
particular idea on how to fix the problem, we would appreciate if you described
it rather than leaving us a trail of breadcrumbs.
Please note that your patch, 10311, is the one that breaks the tenet that
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2909/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2910/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Gross, Joe wrote:
Hi Nilay,
I've looked through these but don't see any obvious special behaviors
that would apply to the SimpleNetwork deserialization. However, neither
of these have changed significantly in quite a while, so I think
whatever broke was in Network or
31 matches
Mail list logo
