---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3505/#review8421
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Tony Gutierrez
On June 13, 2016, 3:17 p.m., Tuan
Hi Dibakar,
It's not so surprising that dynamic vs. static binaries show some difference in
instruction fetch behavior, however these numbers do seem drastic, and also
seem counter intuitive as I would expect a dynamic binary to have more accesses
due to trampoline calls. Have you looked at
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3506/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
Create four
Hi,
so what is the usual process of getting patches in? So far, I have a
"ship it" from one reviewer. Do I need more? If yes, can someone please
have a look? If not, how do we proceed from here? Btw, I don't think
this is documented anywhere.
Thanks,
Jakub
On 06/13/2016 10:27 AM, Jakub Jermar
> On juin 17, 2016, 7:57 matin, Pierre-Yves Péneau wrote:
> > I don't like the variable names, I think it's confusing especially in the
> > Python part which is the user part. "lookup_latency" does not clearly
> > refer to the tag lookup action , and "ram_latency" is also not very clear.
> >
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/#review8419
---
I don't like the variable names, I think it's confusing especially in
* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/minor-timing: passed.
* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/o3-timing: passed.
* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/simple-timing: passed.
*
