* build/ALPHA_SE/tests/fast/quick/00.hello/alpha/linux/inorder-timing
passed.
* build/ALPHA_SE/tests/fast/quick/00.hello/alpha/linux/simple-timing passed.
* build/ALPHA_SE/tests/fast/quick/00.hello/alpha/linux/simple-timing-ruby
passed.
*
changeset 2844d69d03e2 in /z/repo/m5
details: http://repo.m5sim.org/m5?cmd=changeset;node=2844d69d03e2
description:
swig: use for system %includes instead of
diffstat:
src/python/swig/core.i | 5 +++--
src/python/swig/debug.i | 3 ++-
src/python/swig/event.i | 4
changeset 15553b536bd6 in /z/repo/m5
details: http://repo.m5sim.org/m5?cmd=changeset;node=15553b536bd6
description:
style: make style hook work with pre-qrefresh and update to use new code
clean up the code a little bit while we're at it.
I recommend that everyone adds the
I was looking at the implementation of floorLog2() in src/base/intmath.hh.
I think this implementation is not the best that can be done. We should
use a GCC builtin __builtin_clz* to implement these functions. I have not
carried out any test to get the execution times for two different
I was looking at the implementation of floorLog2() in src/base/intmath.hh. I
think this implementation is not the best that can be done. We should use a
GCC builtin __builtin_clz* to implement these functions. I have not carried
out any test to get the execution times for two different
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, nathan binkert wrote:
I was looking at the implementation of floorLog2() in src/base/intmath.hh. I
think this implementation is not the best that can be done. We should use a
GCC builtin __builtin_clz* to implement these functions. I have not carried
out any test to get
I was looking at the implementation of floorLog2() in
src/base/intmath.hh. I
think this implementation is not the best that can be done. We should use
a
GCC builtin __builtin_clz* to implement these functions. I have not
carried
out any test to get the execution times for two different
I didn't decipher the subtlety you're talking about, but I just wanted
to point out that we may be doing this manually moving forward, and it
would be best if it wasn't complicated, confusing, or overly subtle.
Gabe
nathan binkert wrote:
Wow, I forgot I had written that... it was only seven
I didn't decipher the subtlety you're talking about, but I just wanted
to point out that we may be doing this manually moving forward, and it
would be best if it wasn't complicated, confusing, or overly subtle.
It's really not that complicated. When you sort, a directory should
be sorted
