On Tue, January 15, 2013 6:15 pm, Ali Saidi wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Nilay Vaish <ni...@cs.wisc.edu> wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ali Saidi wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> On Jan. 8, 2013, 6:29 a.m., Ali Saidi wrote: >>>>> Hi Nilay, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for resurrecting this. In principle I have no issues, I just >>>>> would like to make sure that the moved code includes all the latest >>>>> fixes to the branch predictor that numerous people have contributed >>>>> to. If so and you get no stats differences please commit. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Ali >>>>> >>> >>> I'm still not sure why stats changes should occur. There may be some >>> differences, but since a lot more effort has been put in verifying the >>> o3 cpu branch predictor by people like Nathanael, it would be good to >>> keep that one around and make it work with the in-order cpu or add the >>> methods as appropriate. >>> >>> >> >> The stats would changes only for the inorder-cpu. For the o3 cpu, they >> would remain the same. > Thanks Nilay, that sounds good.
Seems like I will not be able to keep my promise. Following differences were found after running all the regression tests -- 1. tests/long/se/20.parser/ref/arm/linux/o3-timing/ sim_insts 505237723 505237723 0 +0.00% sim_ops 569624283 569624283 0 +0.00% sim_ticks 199845137000 199893963500 48826500 +0.02% 2. tests/quick/se/00.hello/ref/sparc/linux/inorder-timing/ None to sim_insts, sim_ops, sim_ticks, but other stats change. 3. tests/quick/se/02.insttest/ref/sparc/linux/inorder-timing/ None to sim_insts, sim_ops, sim_ticks, but other stats change. Ali, is this fine with you? -- Nilay _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
