I'm rerunning regressions on zizzer and everything seems fine so
far... this looks like an issue with swig on the pool machines. Does
anyone have any idea why things might have changed (either with the
version of swig on the pool machines, or the version that we require)?
Unfortunately the log
I'm rerunning regressions on zizzer and everything seems fine so
far... this looks like an issue with swig on the pool machines. Does
anyone have any idea why things might have changed (either with the
version of swig on the pool machines, or the version that we require)?
Unfortunately the
Quoting nathan binkert n...@binkert.org:
I'm rerunning regressions on zizzer and everything seems fine so
far... this looks like an issue with swig on the pool machines. Does
anyone have any idea why things might have changed (either with the
version of swig on the pool machines, or the
Hello evebody,
Here's a small observation that I made:
In SMT configurations for ALPHA/Linux, the first workload that finishes
terminates all the other workloads on the CPU because it makes the system
call, exit_group(). This problem, however, does not surface with the hello
binary checked into
Hi,
I am attaching a small patch that enables the passing of the ruby config
file as a parameter. So, multiple protocols can be tested without manually
modifying the config_file name.
Comments are welcome.
Polina
config_as_param
Description: Binary data
Hi,
I have a question: why is it that the access_size is first calculated as
random() % 4 and then reset to zero before issuing the request in
MemTest::tick?
Thank you.
Polina
___
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
Good question. Looks like historical cruft to me. I think there used
to be a mode that tested variable-size accesses but that mode got
ripped out. Note that access_size is log2 of the access size, so
setting it to 0 means byte accesses.
Steve
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Polina
I see. It seems like it would be more appropriate to have tester test larger
requests because we are getting a false sense of correctness by running the
test. It tests the protocol logic well but not the data correctness.
Also, is there a maximum on the size of the m5 request? I would like to
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Polina Dudnikpdud...@gmail.com wrote:
I see. It seems like it would be more appropriate to have tester test larger
requests because we are getting a false sense of correctness by running the
test. It tests the protocol logic well but not the data correctness.
