Tough to say... my gut feeling is that the numeric PC is more likely to be correct, but on the other hand, the PC appears to map not only to a different function, but to an instruction that's not even a memory access, which makes it odd that it is generating a request packet.
Steve On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Scott Lerner via gem5-dev < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am trying to do some validation of gem5 by looking at the output memory > traces and comparing them to the static-compiled binary. > > What I have seen is that in the memory trace there will be an output line > like: > "5228735114000: system.l1_cntrl3.sequencer: Ruby Hit Callback: Read, Thread > number=3, Pkt Address=0x3ff250c0,Pkt Size=8, Func=pthread_barrier_wait, > PC=0x402088" > > But when looking at the dump of the binary, the PC 0x402088 maps to a > different function: > 00000000004016d0 <lu>: > ... > 402083: 0f 8e f4 00 00 00 jle 40217d <lu+0xaad> > ... > 0000000000402740 <OneSolve>: > > My question is should I trust the PC or the function name? Is there a way > to verify that either one is correct? I am using the gem5 from February > last year. > > Thanks, > > Scott > Ph.D. candidate > Drexel University > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
