Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3693: riscv: [Patch 7/5] Corrected LRSC semantics

> On Nov. 10, 2016, 4:37 p.m., Tony Gutierrez wrote: > > src/arch/riscv/locked_mem.hh, line 96 > > > > > > Should you be using cacheBlockMask here, as opposed to 0xF? That would make more sense to me, also, but

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3528: misc: add a TLM to Gem5 Master Port

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3528/#review9081 --- Thanks for this. Some minor requests and style issues, then it's good to

[gem5-dev] Review Request 3705: dev: Fix buffer length when unserializing an eth pkt

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3705/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3701: syscall_emul: [PATCH 20/22] add the tgkill system call

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3701/#review9080 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Michael LeBeane On Nov. 14, 2016, 8:56 p.m.,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3702: syscall_emul: [PATCH 21/22] rewrite code related to system call exits

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3702/#review9079 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Michael LeBeane On Nov. 14, 2016, 9:30 p.m.,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3704: style: change NULL to nullptr in syscall files

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3704/#review9078 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Michael LeBeane On Nov. 14, 2016, 9:02 p.m.,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3696: syscall_emul: [PATCH 15/22] add clone/execve for threading and multiprocess simulations

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3696/#review9076 --- In general, I think this patch could be improved by making better use of

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3690: x86, ext: fix buf overflow in fp80 ops; pad fp80_t in fputils

> On Nov. 15, 2016, 9:27 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote: > > src/arch/x86/isa/microops/fpop.isa, line 354 > > > > > > Are these changes really needed? Fixed. I will push this once the changes to fputils have been pulled into

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3690: x86, ext: fix buf overflow in fp80 ops; pad fp80_t in fputils

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3690/ --- (Updated Nov. 15, 2016, 11:52 a.m.) Review request for Default. Repository: gem5

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3690: x86, ext: fix buf overflow in fp80 ops; pad fp80_t in fputils

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3690/#review9075 --- Ship it! src/arch/x86/isa/microops/fpop.isa (line 354)

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3690: x86, ext: fix buf overflow in fp80 ops; pad fp80_t in fputils

> On Nov. 15, 2016, 3:16 p.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote: > > Thanks for fixing this. The only technical issue I have with this patch is > > that it uses bit fields, which have slightly undefined semantics. I would > > like to avoid that if possible. I think it would be fine to just add a > >

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3690: x86, ext: fix buf overflow in fp80 ops; pad fp80_t in fputils

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3690/ --- (Updated Nov. 15, 2016, 9:18 a.m.) Review request for Default. Repository: gem5

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3690: x86, ext: fix buf overflow in fp80 ops; pad fp80_t in fputils

> On Nov. 15, 2016, 7:16 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote: > > Thanks for fixing this. The only technical issue I have with this patch is > > that it uses bit fields, which have slightly undefined semantics. I would > > like to avoid that if possible. I think it would be fine to just add a > >

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3690: x86, ext: fix buf overflow in fp80 ops; pad fp80_t in fputils

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3690/#review9072 --- Thanks for fixing this. The only technical issue I have with this patch

[gem5-dev] Cron <m5test@zizzer> /z/m5/regression/do-regression quick

* build/HSAIL_X86/tests/opt/quick/se/04.gpu/x86/linux/gpu-ruby-GPU_RfO: CHANGED! * build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/simple-timing-ruby: passed. * build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/tru64/minor-timing: passed. *