* 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-atomic passed.
*
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2515/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
Changeset
On Nov. 19, 2014, 12:22 a.m., Cagdas Dirik wrote:
Please ignore my last review. I made a mistake with my patches.
In FS, X86 mode I was able to boot with python variant, checkpoint, run a
short program. Then I was able to restore from checkpoint and run the same
program again. And
On Nov. 19, 2014, 12:22 a.m., Cagdas Dirik wrote:
Please ignore my last review. I made a mistake with my patches.
In FS, X86 mode I was able to boot with python variant, checkpoint, run a
short program. Then I was able to restore from checkpoint and run the same
program again. And
On Nov. 18, 2014, 10:43 p.m., Gabe Black wrote:
util/m5/m5ops.h, line 57
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/diff/4/?file=42082#file42082line57
Why do we need psuedo ops for syscalls when there are actual syscall
instructions? The same goes for page faults. I'm not saying I know that
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/#review5487
---
src/arch/arm/pseudo_inst.cc
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/#comment4939
On 18/11/14 13:22, Steve Reinhardt via gem5-dev wrote:
I haven't looked at the code in question, so I'm just going by what I've
seen in this email thread. However, it seems like there ought to be some
alternative solutions here. I like the general direction Andreas is going,
though it would be
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2514/#review5488
---
The change itself makes sense, but I'd really prefer if we could avoid
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2510/#review5489
---
src/cpu/kvm/vm.hh
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2510/#comment4940
The
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2515/#review5490
---
src/dev/x86/Pc.py
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2515/#comment4946
I
On Nov. 19, 2014, 12:22 a.m., Cagdas Dirik wrote:
Please ignore my last review. I made a mistake with my patches.
In FS, X86 mode I was able to boot with python variant, checkpoint, run a
short program. Then I was able to restore from checkpoint and run the same
program again. And
On Nov. 19, 2014, 12:22 a.m., Cagdas Dirik wrote:
Please ignore my last review. I made a mistake with my patches.
In FS, X86 mode I was able to boot with python variant, checkpoint, run a
short program. Then I was able to restore from checkpoint and run the same
program again. And
On Nov. 19, 2014, 4:45 p.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote:
src/dev/x86/Pc.py, line 54
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2515/diff/1/?file=42652#file42652line54
I might be confused by the weird semantics of the gem5 configuration
scripts, but isn't this killing the fake device for port 0x80?
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2515/
---
(Updated Nov. 19, 2014, 11:51 p.m.)
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
On Nov. 18, 2014, 10:43 p.m., Gabe Black wrote:
util/m5/m5ops.h, line 57
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/diff/4/?file=42082#file42082line57
Why do we need psuedo ops for syscalls when there are actual syscall
instructions? The same goes for page faults. I'm not saying I know that
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/
---
(Updated Nov. 20, 2014, 12:36 a.m.)
Review request for Default.
Changes
---
On Nov. 18, 2014, 4:30 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
src/mem/page_table.hh, line 95
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2462/diff/1/?file=42140#file42140line95
I'd suggest to specify the storage type (uint32_t)
Thought it is the only enum that will have an explicit storage type.
- Alexandru
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2462/
---
(Updated Nov. 20, 2014, 6:27 a.m.)
Review request for Default.
Changes
---
On Nov. 18, 2014, 4:30 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
src/mem/page_table.hh, line 95
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2462/diff/1/?file=42140#file42140line95
I'd suggest to specify the storage type (uint32_t)
Alexandru Dutu wrote:
Thought it is the only enum that will have an
19 matches
Mail list logo
