Steve Reinhardt wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Steve Reinhardt ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Gabriel Michael
Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
Probably the easiest way would just be to take a current decoder.cc,
hack it up manually to match one of
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Gabe Black gbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
I'll take a look at trying to do something semi-automatic to split
things up. In addition to putting the decide function in a separate
file, maybe we could add a directive like
set decoder_output filename;
that
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Steve Reinhardt ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Gabriel Michael
Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
Probably the easiest way would just be to take a current decoder.cc,
hack it up manually to match one of the thigns we're proposing, then
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Gabe Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
The problem is that you need the displacement/immediate to actually do
the cache look up since those are part of the ExtMachInst and are
factored into a match. Those could be ignored for a preliminary lookup,
read in if
Steve Reinhardt wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Gabe Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
The problem is that you need the displacement/immediate to actually do
the cache look up since those are part of the ExtMachInst and are
factored into a match. Those could be ignored for a
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Gabe Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
1. Get StaticInst for PC X (if any).
2. Read the StaticInst's ExtMachInst to learn that the original
instruction it represents occupied N bytes, and what those bytes were.
3. Compare the N bytes in memory at PC X with the
(Redirecting this one to m5-dev too. To keep these threads more
manageable I'm just responding to the parts related to the original
topic of splitting up decoder.cc.)
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Gabe Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
Steve Reinhardt wrote:
My thought was
that a key
I would like to follow this thread at least lightly as I often have to
dibble and dabble into ISA descriptions...
I believe the end-goal is : better processing of the C++ code snippets in
the ISA description language.
and the motivation for it is (please correct or add on here):
- integration of
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Gabriel Michael
Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
Actually I was hoping that you wouldn't have to include all the .hh
files. If the main decoder in main_decoder.cc calls out to a
subdecoder for x87 ops in x87_decoder.cc, then a header that declares
the
Quoting Steve Reinhardt ste...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Gabriel Michael
Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
Actually I was hoping that you wouldn't have to include all the .hh
files. If the main decoder in main_decoder.cc calls out to a
subdecoder for x87 ops in
Probably the easiest way would just be to take a current decoder.cc,
hack it up manually to match one of the thigns we're proposing, then
invoke gcc manually on the result and time it. (Not necessarily easy
in an absolute sense, but it's just a one-off try so there's no point
in doing
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Gabriel Michael
Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
The decode cache is being used. The cache is keyed on ExtMachInsts, and x86
translates the stream of instruction bytes into those before they hit the
decoder. X86 defines those as a structure that holds all the
I see no mention of specific individuals in my comment! A lot depends
on whether you can hack out a few contiguous 30,000-line chunks or if
you'd have to do a lot of interleaving a few lines at a time to get it
to work. Even in the latter case, some emacs macro creativity could
possibly go
nathan binkert wrote:
I see no mention of specific individuals in my comment! A lot depends
on whether you can hack out a few contiguous 30,000-line chunks or if
you'd have to do a lot of interleaving a few lines at a time to get it
to work. Even in the latter case, some emacs macro
(Getting this back on the list again...)
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Gabe Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
Steve Reinhardt wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Gabe Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
Steve Reinhardt wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Gabriel Michael
Steve Reinhardt wrote:
(Getting this back on the list again...)
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Gabe Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
Steve Reinhardt wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Gabe Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
Steve Reinhardt wrote:
On
16 matches
Mail list logo
