Quoting Steve Reinhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Great, glad you guys were able to do that.
>
> There will be a
> > new flag on static insts which will indicate whether or not they leave
> > the context of the current macroop on faults.
>
>
> Is this flag for microops or macroops or both?
Both, sin
> I'm pretty sure that is the appropriate fix. Full coverage of the
> shadow-sets in regression testing wasnt available previously so like I
> said before this is a case of implementing every instruction on the
> MIPS32 ISA specification for possible future cases then "this code
> works and now it'
> Can we talk to Jaidev? Do you have his e-mail address?
Sure, I can email him...
> I'd like to
> get this figured out. Do they have updated code perhaps?
I'm pretty sure that is the appropriate fix. Full coverage of the
shadow-sets in regression testing wasnt available previously so like I
sai
> FYI: I have gcc 4.1 on my system so I'm assuming that whoever is
> testing for gcc 4.3 compatibility with knock this quick patch out
Unfortunately, it's not so quick re my previous e-mail. And if you
correct it for 4.1, it will probably be correct or 4.3.
Nate
___
> Looking further, it seems that there has been confusion on NumIntRegs
> v. NumArchIntRegs on Jaidev's implementation.
Can we talk to Jaidev? Do you have his e-mail address? I'd like to
get this figured out. Do they have updated code perhaps?
> Wrgpr and Rdgpr are functions for the sole purpos
Great, glad you guys were able to do that.
There will be a
> new flag on static insts which will indicate whether or not they leave
> the context of the current macroop on faults.
Is this flag for microops or macroops or both?
Is this feature required only for the optimization cases you mention
-- Forwarded message --
From: Reinhardt, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:16 AM
Subject: FW: changeset in m5: Make overriding port assignments in Python
work,
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Interesting side effect of pushing from an email address not subscribed to
m5-dev... one more of these to follow.
Steve
-- Forwarded message --
From: Reinhardt, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:17 AM
Subject: FW: changeset in m5: Fix EVENTQ_DEBUG vs DEBUG_EVE
FYI: I have gcc 4.1 on my system so I'm assuming that whoever is
testing for gcc 4.3 compatibility with knock this quick patch out
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Korey Sewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looking further, it seems that there has been confusion on NumIntRegs
> v. NumArchIntReg
Just to bring everyone who isn't me or Nate up to date, we met and
discussed what needs to happen to support microcode more completely in
x86 and came up with the following. The fromRom mechanism will be
removed and replaced with the high bit of the micropc. There will be a
new flag on stat
See /z/m5/regression/regress-2008-09-30-03:00:01 for details.
___
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
11 matches
Mail list logo