It looks like this was probably due to my swaps-marking-blocks-dirty fix. None of the runs had changes in sim_insts. All the simple-timing runs also had no change in sim_ticks, with just <= 0.01% changes in cache stats (mostly a couple more writebacks). The o3-timing test had a negligible change in sim_ticks as well.
I'll update the stats as soon as I get a chance. Steve On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Gabe Black <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't see anything specific to SPARC in the last week. There was > something the week before that to fix syscall bounds checks in non-x86 > ISAs. Everything else was last month and mainly x86 stuff. > > Gabe > > nathan binkert wrote: >> It appears that some of the sparc tests failed. Does anyone know what >> changed in SPARC recently? >> >> Nate >> >> >>> ***** build/SPARC_SE/tests/fast/long/50.vortex/sparc/linux/simple-timing >>> FAILED! >>> ***** build/SPARC_SE/tests/fast/long/10.mcf/sparc/linux/simple-timing >>> FAILED! >>> ***** build/SPARC_SE/tests/fast/long/00.gzip/sparc/linux/simple-timing >>> FAILED! >>> ***** build/SPARC_SE/tests/fast/long/00.gzip/sparc/linux/o3-timing FAILED! >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> m5-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
