Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3684: alpha: Remove ALPHA support and supplemental files

> On Oct. 25, 2016, 10:13 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > util/regress, line 45 > > > > > > I think this has been pointed out by Brad in the past, but we need to > > keep these tests for other Ruby protocols around. I thin

Re: [gem5-dev] Base cpu modification

Hello, Could you give us some more details on what you're proposing. What is this "component"? Do you expect that many people in the community will need/want to use this component? If so, then it may make sense to incorporate some changes to the BaseCPU object. The way I see it is you have three

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3684: alpha: Remove ALPHA support and supplemental files

> On Oct. 25, 2016, 10:13 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > util/regress, line 45 > > > > > > I think this has been pointed out by Brad in the past, but we need to > > keep these tests for other Ruby protocols around. I thin

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3684: alpha: Remove ALPHA support and supplemental files

> On Oct. 25, 2016, 10:13 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > util/regress, line 45 > > > > > > I think this has been pointed out by Brad in the past, but we need to > > keep these tests for other Ruby protocols around. I thin

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3684: alpha: Remove ALPHA support and supplemental files

> On Oct. 25, 2016, 10:13 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > SConstruct, line 421 > > > > > > Clearly X86 should be the default, not ARM! ;) > > > > Joking aside, maybe the default should be the same as the host syst

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3684: alpha: Remove ALPHA support and supplemental files

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3684/#review8981 --- I'm a little surprised at how much coupling there is between the CPU mode

Re: [gem5-dev] Removal of ALPHA from gem5

I agree with Alex: the ISA description system was designed for Alpha, and it remains the purest example of how it was intended to be used, so I think there's some value in keeping it around for that. To me, it should boil down to a cost/benefit consideration. I agree that the benefits are not that

Re: [gem5-dev] Removal of ALPHA from gem5

Hi Andreas, Not sure I understand this decision/proposal. Certainly, there are some ISAs in the current repo which are not used or maintained by anyone. This might render them good candidates for removal. However, ALPHA is quite a big exception in my mind. Surely, very few people are using ALP

[gem5-dev] Base cpu modification

Hi all, I would like to add a new hardware component in gem5. This component will be at the same level than L1 caches. I am planning to modify the base cpu to add a new port and use it to communicate with my component. Eventually, I would like to share my work with the gem5 community. Louisa Bess

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/ --- (Updated Oct. 25, 2016, 9:18 a.m.) Review request for Default. Repository: gem5

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3666: arm, config: added support for ex5 model of big.LITTLE

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3666/#review8979 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Pierre-Yves Péneau On Oct. 20, 2016, 6:39 p.m., A

[gem5-dev] Cron /z/m5/regression/do-regression quick

* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/minor-timing: passed. * build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/simple-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/si