[gem5-dev] Review Request 3800: x86 fix Mul1u instructions

2017-02-01 Thread Tony Gutierrez
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3800/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset

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

2017-02-01 Thread Matthias Jung
Hi Bjoern, on my MAC I run into the same issue: http://qa.gem5.org//1905/compiling-problem-gem5-mac-os-10-11-6-scons-build-arm-gem5-opt When I use your patch I run into some other errors: In file included from build/ARM/arch/arm/linux/process.cc:56: build/ARM/sim/syscall_emul.hh:545:41: error:

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3798: misc: Clean up and complete the gem5<->SystemC-TLM bridge [9/6]

2017-02-01 Thread Christian Menard
> On Jan. 31, 2017, 4:10 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > I don't follow why you don't need to pay for the payload delay. Is that > > taken care of at some other point in the System-C model? > > Christian Menard wrote: > Simply paying for the payload delay in the transactor would be

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3799: misc: Clean up and complete the gem5<->SystemC-TLM bridge [10/6]

2017-02-01 Thread Christian Menard
> On Jan. 31, 2017, 4:14 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > How does this relate to init/initState/startup for SimObjects > > (http://gem5.org/SimObject_Initialization)? I'm not very familiar with the > > System-C bindings. Does this object live fully in the System-C world? Yes, this object is

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3798: misc: Clean up and complete the gem5<->SystemC-TLM bridge [9/6]

2017-02-01 Thread Jason Lowe-Power
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3798/#review9364 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Jason Lowe-Power On Jan. 30, 2017, 4:40 p.m.,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3798: misc: Clean up and complete the gem5<->SystemC-TLM bridge [9/6]

2017-02-01 Thread Jason Lowe-Power
> On Jan. 31, 2017, 4:10 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > I don't follow why you don't need to pay for the payload delay. Is that > > taken care of at some other point in the System-C model? > > Christian Menard wrote: > Simply paying for the payload delay in the transactor would be

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3796: misc: Clean up and complete the gem5<->SystemC-TLM bridge [7/6]

2017-02-01 Thread Andreas Hansson
> On Feb. 1, 2017, 1:29 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > It would be tremendously helpful if we could get some regressions tests, > > but until core SystemC is available with Apache v2 (which supposedly should > > happen) I do not see a good way. Any thoughts? Actually, I noticed that the

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3798: misc: Clean up and complete the gem5<->SystemC-TLM bridge [9/6]

2017-02-01 Thread Christian Menard
> On Jan. 31, 2017, 4:10 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > I don't follow why you don't need to pay for the payload delay. Is that > > taken care of at some other point in the System-C model? Simply paying for the payload delay in the transactor would be wrong. If we look at how it works in

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3378: scons: make build better on FreeBSD

2017-02-01 Thread Andreas Hansson
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3378/#review9358 --- SConstruct (line 1097)