On Fri, July 22, 2011 9:02 am, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Beckmann, Brad > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Overall this seems like a lot of work. So what is the benefit? It is >> just >> reducing the number of binaries the regression tester needs to compile? > > > I'm wondering the same thing... I agree, it would be sort of nice to have > everything in one binary (or at least have that option), but is it that > big > of a practical gain? And wouldn't having that many more source files just > increase the scons overhead further (independent of the SLICC parsing > times)? > > It seems like we've got the original se.py problem solved (correct?), so > it's not like there's a bug that really needs this capability to be fixed. >
There is still a bug in se.py. The condition for when to add Ruby's options is not complete. > Also, wrt compiling Ruby in by default... I think that's a good idea, but > for modularity's sake it's still nice to be able to turn it off if it's > not > being used. > I agree with Steve on compiling Ruby in by default. I am going back on what I said earlier, but that I also do not want to compile Ruby, or any other part of gem5 unless it is required. That's why I submitted a patch that removes RUBY as compile time option but still compiles Ruby when required. -- Nilay _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
