changeset 9fb150de362e in /z/repo/gem5
details: http://repo.gem5.org/gem5?cmd=changeset;node=9fb150de362e
description:
Loader: Handle bad section names when loading an ELF file.
If there's a problem when reading the section names from a supposed ELF
file,
this change makes
changeset 931ef19535e0 in /z/repo/gem5
details: http://repo.gem5.org/gem5?cmd=changeset;node=931ef19535e0
description:
LibElf: Build the error management code in libelf.
This change makes some minor changes to get the error management code in
libelf to build on Linux and to
changeset 7a32aa3acd72 in /z/repo/gem5
details: http://repo.gem5.org/gem5?cmd=changeset;node=7a32aa3acd72
description:
sparc: update long regressions
diffstat:
tests/long/00.gzip/ref/sparc/linux/o3-timing/config.ini|
2 +-
tests/long/00.gzip/ref/sparc/linux/o3-tim
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Gabe Black wrote:
>
> I was thinking about this today, and if we expand the read/write
> functions to handle signed types too, we're really just expanding the
> arbitrary set of types they can handle, not removing the limitation that
> you have to stay within those
ok, looks like these sparc runs are just regression updates that I didnt do
for the long runs (phew!).
I'll update them shortly.
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Korey Sewell wrote:
> Looks like I still got some work to do w/the SPARC regressions. I
> definitely didnt think adding a few control
> On 2011-06-11 09:56:39, Steve Reinhardt wrote:
> > Shouldn't you get rid of the cache_unit.cc changes now? I thought that was
> > the point.
> >
> > This is still a hack, in my opinion; note that the comment on the _pc field
> > in mem/request.hh says "for tracing/debugging", i.e., it's not
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/735/#review1326
---
Ship it!
- Steve
On 2011-06-04 11:39:02, Gabe Black wrote:
>
> --
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/736/#review1325
---
Ship it!
- Steve
On 2011-06-04 11:42:05, Gabe Black wrote:
>
> --
Looks like I still got some work to do w/the SPARC regressions. I definitely
didnt think adding a few control flags would cause pain, but I must've
unknowingly hit some other spot in the code since control flags should have
nothing to do with how the simple cpus operate.
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:
* build/SPARC_SE/tests/opt/long/70.twolf/sparc/linux/simple-atomic FAILED!
* build/SPARC_SE/tests/opt/long/50.vortex/sparc/linux/simple-timing FAILED!
* build/SPARC_SE/tests/opt/long/10.mcf/sparc/linux/simple-timing FAILED!
* build/SPARC_SE/tests/opt/long/70.twolf/sparc/linux/simple
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/611/
---
(Updated 2011-06-12 14:55:53.667339)
Review request for Default.
Summary (updated
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/611/
---
(Updated 2011-06-12 14:55:00.907885)
Review request for Default.
Summary (updated
Ping
On 06/04/11 11:42, Gabe Black wrote:
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/736/
> ---
>
> Review request for Default, Ali
Ping
On 06/04/11 11:39, Gabe Black wrote:
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/735/
> ---
>
> Review request for Default, Ali
On 06/04/11 09:32, Steve Reinhardt wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Gabe Black wrote:
>> To clarify, is this signed/unsigned issue something we need to deal with
>> before this patch goes in, or can it be dealt with separately later?
> I'd like to see it handled before the patch is committ
15 matches
Mail list logo
