Hi Jason, I had removed the tests from the regression patch that fail due to the error I pointed out in my initial message because I didn't think it was appropriate to include failing tests in a gem5 release, and had planned to add them when the bug was fixed. I'm pretty busy at the moment with several deadlines in the next few weeks, so I don't know if I'll be able to get to it anytime soon.
Thanks, Alec On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Jason Lowe-Power <ja...@lowepower.com> wrote: > Hi Alec, > > These are ready according to me. Unless someone has an objection, I'll push > them on Friday (assuming I can get up after all the food on Thursday). > > Note: All of the tests are passing for me with minor changes in the > instruction rates, etc. > > Thanks again for these patches. I think that this is one of the most > important additions to gem5 in a while :). > > Cheers, > Jason > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 2:20 PM Alec Roelke <ar...@virginia.edu> wrote: > > > Hello Everyone, > > > > It has been about two weeks since the last review for my 8 RISC-V patches > > except the 7th patch, so it seems to me like most of them can be > > committed? The patches are: > > - 3624 (arch: [Patch 1/5] Added RISC-V base instruction set RV64I) > > - 3627 (riscv: [Patch 2/5] Added RISC-V multiply extension RV64M) > > - 3628 (riscv: [Patch 3/5] Added RISCV floating point extensions RV64FD) > > - 3629 (riscv: [Patch 4/5] Added RISC-V atomic memory extension RV64A) > > - 3630 (riscv: [Patch 5/5] Added missing support for timing CPU models) > > - 3668 (riscv: [Patch 6/5] Improve Linux emulation for RISC-V) > > - 3693 (riscv: [Patch 7/5] Corrected LRSC semantics) > > - 3694 (riscv: [Patch 8/5] Added some regression tests to RISC-V) > > > > There is a bug that sometimes occurs with the O3 CPU model where a memory > > access may cross a cache line boundary (see the first comment chain of > > patch 3693) and cause a panic. I have not encountered this except when > > trying to run some of the regression tests I made for patch 3694 on O3. > It > > would make the most sense to change patch 3624 to fix it, but since that > > would delay shipping it, I think it would be better to make a new patch. > > > > Thanks, > > Alec Roelke > > _______________________________________________ > > gem5-dev mailing list > > gem5-dev@gem5.org > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > gem5-dev@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
