I could go either way. If it forced us to just get it done in 2 or 3 days then it would be worth it. Otherwise, we should push it off, but not too far. Ali
On Sep 26, 2008, at 11:51 PM, nathan binkert wrote: > Do you want to hold off on letting a stable out for this stuff? I'd > say that we need to get stable done to allow things into the tree, and > we can try to make this a part of the next stable release which we can > target as 2.0. > > Nate > >> I think high on the list needs to be a clean-up of the statistics in >> models. Some are fine, most exist but their precise meaning (mostly >> in >> the CPU and cache models) isn't clear, a few might be wrong, and some >> don't exist, but they need to (bus and bridge). >> >> I don't the the statistics are presently any worse than they are in >> stable, however I do think we should spend some time working on them >> in the near term and call that 2.0. I'll volunteer to take care of >> the >> bus and the bridge. >> >> Ali >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2008, at 16:41, "nathan binkert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Ok, now that kevin has fixed the O3 problems that we've had, what's >>> left? >>> >>> 1) I've got a couple more outstanding changes that get GCC 4.3 fully >>> functional >>> 2) I'd like to update all regressions so there are no differences. >>> >>> Anything else? Someone else willing to do the leg work to announce >>> everything? >>> >>> Nate >>> _______________________________________________ >>> m5-dev mailing list >>> m5-dev@m5sim.org >>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> m5-dev mailing list >> m5-dev@m5sim.org >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > m5-dev@m5sim.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
