*
build/ARM/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/arm/linux/simple-atomic-dummychecker
CHANGED!
* build/ARM/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/arm/linux/o3-timing-checker CHANGED!
* build/ARM/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/arm/linux/simple-timing CHANGED!
*
Hi all,
With changeset: dac26eb4cb64 cpu: o3: replace issueLatency with bool
pipelined”, gem5 fails to compile:
build/ARM/cpu/o3/fu_pool.cc:91:38: error: array subscript is above array bounds
[-Werror=array-bounds]
maxOpLatencies[i] = Cycles(0);
^
On April 29, 2015, 10:43 p.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote:
Thanks!
Wouldn't it make sense to move the CacheBlkVisitor base class to cache.hh
too? Whether you make that change or not, go ahead and ship it... no need
for another reviewboard round-trip.
I left it there since forEachBlk
On April 15, 2015, 10:49 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
Thanks for the fix. I'm ok with this going in, but I have a simplification
that I think we should consider instead. Let me post if and see what you
think.
Andreas Hansson wrote:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2746/
Let
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2751/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
Changeset
This seems to solve the issue:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2751/
My guess is that it’s a gcc bug.
Andreas
On 30/04/2015 08:58, Andreas Hansson andreas.hans...@arm.com wrote:
Hi all,
With changeset: dac26eb4cb64 cpu: o3: replace issueLatency with bool
pipelined”, gem5 fails to compile:
On April 29, 2015, 3:43 p.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote:
Thanks!
Wouldn't it make sense to move the CacheBlkVisitor base class to cache.hh
too? Whether you make that change or not, go ahead and ship it... no need
for another reviewboard round-trip.
Andreas Hansson wrote:
I
Looking over this patch one last time, another question occurred to me: are
there plans to merge the BaseCache and Cache classes? The former was only
used to factor out common code that did not need to be templated.
Steve
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Steve Reinhardt ste...@gmail.com wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2751/
---
(Updated April 30, 2015, 2:25 p.m.)
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2752/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
Default swig
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2752/
---
(Updated April 30, 2015, 1:44 p.m.)
Review request for Default, Ali Saidi and
On April 15, 2015, 10:49 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
Thanks for the fix. I'm ok with this going in, but I have a simplification
that I think we should consider instead. Let me post if and see what you
think.
Andreas Hansson wrote:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2746/
Let
Hi Steve,
We are in the process of creating a “non-coherent” LastLevelCache, and I think
there will be some major refactoring in the next few months. In short, I’d
suggest to keep the BaseCache for now.
Andreas
From: Steve Reinhardt ste...@gmail.commailto:ste...@gmail.com
Date: Thursday, 30
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Beckmann, Brad wrote:
My main objection to the change is that it is not worth the time. It is
taking a sledgehammer to a bug that only requires a minor tweak. There
is a lot of downstream code that will be impacted by a change that
doesn't provide any real benefit. To
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2751/#review6113
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Anthony Gutierrez
On April 30, 2015, 7:25 a.m.,
Replies below:
-Original Message-
From: gem5-dev [mailto:gem5-dev-boun...@gem5.org] On Behalf Of Nilay Vaish
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:20 AM
To: gem5 Developer List
Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2749: cpu: testers: rubytest: fix the
test
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Beckmann,
16 matches
Mail list logo
