Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3790: x86: fixed branching computation for branch uops that only changes nupc and not npc

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3790/#review9314 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Gabe Black On Jan. 23, 2017, 3:39 p.m., Santi

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3773: ruby: PerfectSwitch add assured access arbitration

> On Jan. 19, 2017, 9 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote: > > Overall this patch looks really good. I'm sure it helps out GPU > > simulations quite a bit. I do have a few questions/comments I would like > > answered/addressed before I give it a ship it. Agreed on your suggestions. I've updated the

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3773: ruby: PerfectSwitch add assured access arbitration

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3773/ --- (Updated Jan. 25, 2017, 6:49 a.m.) Review request for Default. Repository: gem5

Re: [gem5-dev] Compilation error for gem5 after statfs change

On 24 Jan 2017, at 22:08, Jason Lowe-Power wrote: Hi Brandon, I think this is a "real" bug: http://qa.gem5.org//1905/compiling-problem-gem5-mac-os-10-11-6-scons-build-arm-gem5-opt. I think there are a few more places that need an #ifdef NO_STATFS. Could you look into it and post a patch if

Re: [gem5-dev] Bug in x86 stack instructions

Thanks for helping me work this out. I got the binary working by completely removing the AddrSizeFlagBit. The only place this bit is used is in the LdStOp (it's set to true if legacy.addr is true) and then, in the TLB, if the AddrSizeFlagBit is set it truncates the address to 32-bits removing the

[gem5-dev] Compilation error for gem5 after statfs change

Hi Brandon, I think this is a "real" bug: http://qa.gem5.org//1905/compiling-problem-gem5-mac-os-10-11-6-scons-build-arm-gem5-opt. I think there are a few more places that need an #ifdef NO_STATFS. Could you look into it and post a patch if there's a problem? If not, please reply to the gem5 QA

Re: [gem5-dev] Bug in x86 stack instructions

Hmm, seems like there's a little bit of an inconsistency in that the request is using the legacy.addr bit (which is set by the decoder when it sees the address size override prefix [1]) directly, while the legacy.addr bit is also used to calculate the addressSize value [2] but can be overridden

Re: [gem5-dev] Bug in x86 stack instructions

Hi Steve, That was super helpful. I'm now a step closer to solving this! Your suggestion of =ssz, lead me to search for the uses of that in x86, and it turns out that almost all of other stack instructions have dataSize=ssz. So, I added both dataSize=ssz and addressSize=ssz to the call

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3781: riscv: Remove ECALL tests from insttest

Hi Alec, Don’t worry about it. It is the reviewboard being silly. Andreas On 24/01/2017, 16:34, "gem5-dev on behalf of Alec Roelke" wrote: > > >> On Jan. 24, 2017, 9:43 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote: >> > Did you remove all files from

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3781: riscv: Remove ECALL tests from insttest

> On Jan. 24, 2017, 9:43 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote: > > Did you remove all files from the reference output directory? In that case, > > you'll need to add a an empty placeholder file called EMPTY in the > > reference directories. Some VCS systems (git being one of them) don't track > >

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3754: cpu: Simplify the rename interface and use RegId

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3754/#review9309 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Jason Lowe-Power On Jan. 16, 2017, 11:46 a.m.,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3790: x86: fixed branching computation for branch uops that only changes nupc and not npc

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3790/#review9308 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Jason Lowe-Power On Jan. 23, 2017, 3:39 p.m.,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3785: sim, kvm: make KvmVM a System parameter

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3785/#review9307 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Jason Lowe-Power On Jan. 17, 2017, 10:04 p.m.,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3785: sim, kvm: make KvmVM a System parameter

> On Jan. 18, 2017, 4:02 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > Is there any way you can remove the #if USE_KVM from the system.cc file? I > > don't have any suggestions off the top of my head, though. > > Curtis Dunham wrote: > We agree that it's not the best, but we didn't see a better

Re: [gem5-dev] Bug in x86 stack instructions

My recollection of how all this works is that the arguments to the 'st' micro-op get turned into arguments to a call to the StoreOp constructor: 597 class StoreOp(LdStOp): 598

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3785: sim, kvm: make KvmVM a System parameter

> On Jan. 18, 2017, 4:02 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > Is there any way you can remove the #if USE_KVM from the system.cc file? I > > don't have any suggestions off the top of my head, though. We agree that it's not the best, but we didn't see a better solution to this problem. We are

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3754: cpu: Simplify the rename interface and use RegId

> On Jan. 19, 2017, 10:13 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > src/cpu/reg_class_impl.hh, line 1 > > > > > > Why is this an implemenation header file? Because it is something that can/should be inlined, as the control has

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3757: arch: added generic vector register

> On Jan. 20, 2017, 5:11 p.m., Tony Gutierrez wrote: > > LGTM, nice implementation. I just have an ask for a few more comments. > > > > 1) A high-level description of the API, and some direction on usage for > > this library would be useful as a top-level comment in the file. > > 2) LaneData

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3757: arch: added generic vector register

> On Jan. 19, 2017, 10:28 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > Seems OK to me. Don't let anyone ever tell you that C++ makes reading code > > easy... I appreciate all of the compile-time tricks going on here, but it > > is incredibly difficult to read. > > > > Maybe some more comments for each

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3781: riscv: Remove ECALL tests from insttest

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3781/#review9301 --- Did you remove all files from the reference output directory? In that

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3790: x86: fixed branching computation for branch uops that only changes nupc and not npc

> On gen. 24, 2017, 8:53 a.m., Santi Galan wrote: > > Ship It! My bad, I am not familiar with the process and I thought that the "Ship it!" button would change somehow the revision state. Santi - Santi --- This is an automatically

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3790: x86: fixed branching computation for branch uops that only changes nupc and not npc

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3790/#review9299 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Santi Galan On gen. 23, 2017, 3:39 p.m., Santi

Re: [gem5-dev] Cron <m5test@zizzer> /z/m5/regression/do-regression --scratch all

Hi Joel, We have been stalling on getting http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3781/ shipped. Once that is done we can update the stats. If Jason can help the patch then I am happy to bump the stats. Andreas On 24/01/2017, 06:09, "gem5-dev on behalf of Joel Hestness"

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3781: riscv: Remove ECALL tests from insttest

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3781/#review9298 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Andreas Hansson On Jan. 23, 2017, 7:36 p.m.,