---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2875/
---
(Updated July 6, 2015, 11:43 a.m.)
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2874/
---
(Updated July 6, 2015, 11:43 a.m.)
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
On July 4, 2015, 8:15 p.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote:
src/sim/serialize.hh, line 337
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2861/diff/1/?file=45893#file45893line337
Is there a plan in place to change the objects that use this? If not
(i.e., if there's a legitimate need for some objects to modify
Hi Everyone,
The following patches have been on review board for close to three weeks
now without receiving any reviews. They are all fairly minor and only
affect the CommMonitor. I'm planning to push them on Friday unless
someone asks me to wait.
mem: Cleanup CommMonitor in preparation for
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2828/#review6715
---
These are my current thoughts about this patch:
1. My impression is
Cagdas,
I just tried to run the quick x86 regressions using a gem5 compiled with
clang 3.5 on Linux and ran into a similar problem. In my case, the tests
segfault, but all the other symptoms seem identical. An interesting
observation is that /all/ the other backends run their quick regressions
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Giacomo Gabrielli wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2828/#review6715
---
These are my current
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2861/
---
(Updated July 6, 2015, 5:15 p.m.)
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
On July 2, 2015, 5:31 a.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
src/mem/ruby/structures/BankedArray.cc, line 74
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2902/diff/3/?file=47066#file47066line74
I strongly suggest that you write a patch that is applied before this
ruby system patch. The new patch would do away
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Brandon Potter wrote:
On July 2, 2015, 5:31 a.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
src/mem/ruby/structures/BankedArray.cc, line 74
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2902/diff/3/?file=47066#file47066line74
I strongly suggest that you write a patch that is applied before
this ruby
On July 6, 2015, 12:42 p.m., Giacomo Gabrielli wrote:
These are my current thoughts about this patch:
1. My impression is that there is still not enough architectural support to
understand if the new vector register type as it stands can address all the
different corner cases
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Nilay Vaish wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Giacomo Gabrielli wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2828/#review6715
Hello all,
First, I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to the document so
far. We've had a lot of good conversations, and I think we've created a
solid footing for gem5 to stand on in the future. The next step is
finalizing the document. I see two different ways to achieve this.
1)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2928/#review6694
---
Hi Nilay,
Can you please wait for atgutier's patches (r/2775 to r/2814)
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Sooraj Puthoor wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2928/#review6694
---
Hi Nilay, Can you please
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2827/#review6722
---
I see incremental changes between revisions and plenty of vector
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2928/#review6723
---
I'm not too fond of how this is done, since it essentially creates a
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Alexandru Dutu wrote:
On July 6, 2015, 12:42 p.m., Giacomo Gabrielli wrote:
These are my current thoughts about this patch:
1. My impression is that there is still not enough architectural support to
understand if the new vector register type as it stands can address
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Alexandru Dutu wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2827/#review6722
---
I see incremental changes
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Giacomo Gabrielli wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2828/#review6715
---
These are my current
Gabor- My concern about unsync checkpoint is that when you restore from an
unsync checkpoint, you'll have gem5 processes that each is running in
different tick. Then how do you handle accurate delivery of packets between
these gem5 processes? It will also make it harder to integrate
multi/pd-gem5
On July 3, 2015, 4:24 p.m., Jason Power wrote:
Hi Tim,
Sorry to come back to this patch, but I just applied it and tried to test
it and ran into a problem. When restoring the original event queue in line
187 of System.cc, I get an error that the event is already on the event
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2890/#review6716
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Nilay Vaish
On June 17, 2015, 6:43 a.m., Andreas
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2875/#review6719
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Steve Reinhardt
On July 6, 2015, 3:43 a.m.,
24 matches
Mail list logo
