* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/30.eio-mp/alpha/eio/simple-atomic-mp
FAILED!*
build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/30.eio-mp/alpha/eio/simple-timing-mp FAILED!
* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/20.eio-short/alpha/eio/simple-atomic
FAILED!
*
Hello ,
I'm trying to figure out where does gem5 checks if the virtual address is
in the canonical address region .
if you can elaborate a bit on the checking flow ( in X86 long mode ) and
the related files involved .
Much appreciated ,
Hanna Alam
___
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Hanna Alam wrote:
Hello ,
I'm trying to figure out where does gem5 checks if the virtual address is
in the canonical address region .
if you can elaborate a bit on the checking flow ( in X86 long mode ) and
the related files involved .
What's meant by canonical address
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1308/#review3090
---
I would like to avoid the creation of 'LegacyTopology' class. If there
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1303/#review3091
---
Ship it!
- Nilay Vaish
On July 11, 2012, 1:58 a.m., Andreas Hansson
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1301/#review3092
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Nilay Vaish
On July 17, 2012, 11:05 a.m.,
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Brad Beckmann wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1293/#review3076
---
Nilay, can you hold off
i guess that this kind of check (if it's indeed performed ) has to be even
earlier than the translate inside the TLB ( src/arch/x86/tlb.cc)
when working in X86 long mode there is a region of addresses that are not
allowed : as it's mentioned in Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Hanna Alam wrote:
i guess that this kind of check (if it's indeed performed ) has to be even
earlier than the translate inside the TLB ( src/arch/x86/tlb.cc)
when working in X86 long mode there is a region of addresses that are not
allowed : as it's mentioned in Intel? 64
I don't see such a check anywhere... it's quite possible that it's not
currently done.
The basic EA calculation is done here:
http://repo.gem5.org/gem5/file/48eeef8a0997/src/arch/x86/isa/microops/ldstop.isa#l364
As far as I know, all the other address checking is done in
TLB::translate(). I
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1303/#review3093
---
I love the idea of this, but I still think that this does not belong in
On July 18, 2012, 8:26 a.m., Nathan Binkert wrote:
I love the idea of this, but I still think that this does not belong in
MemObject. I think that we should really have a ClockedObject class that
derives from SimObject and that MemObject should derive from that. There
are a number
I agree there are a lot of good reasons why we should eventually move all ruby
stats to gem5 stats. I just want to make sure we provide the same information
in the same concise format. When doing protocol performance debugging, we
really depend on those stats.
Brad
-Original
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Andreas Hansson andreas.hans...@arm.comwrote:
On July 18, 2012, 8:26 a.m., Nathan Binkert wrote:
I love the idea of this, but I still think that this does not belong
in MemObject. I think that we should really have a ClockedObject class
that derives from
14 matches
Mail list logo
