> > 1. Below is a snip of a protocol trace that I recently used. I > think it is important for us maintain that there is no DPRINTF information > prepended to each line. The initial motivation for the protocol trace, was > that tracing protocol transitions using standard debug print was too > verbose. These traces can be 100’MB if not GBs in size, so reducing the > information printed to each line is important. Nilay, could you send a snip > of the trace with the patch applied? > Re DPRINTF, see my response to Nilay, but in short, we should just remove some of the columns that you guys have and I think it will be a wash. If that's not sufficient, we can use DPRINTFN. One thing to do then would be to add support for writing these to a gzipped file (that may already just work), no?
2. Just for my own knowledge… Nate, you mentioned that handling the > SIGABRT signal is the right way to make this feature work for all of M5. > Why is that? Is it just the preference not to use macros that overwrite the > meaning of assert, or is it something more fundamental? > Not fundamental. Mostly because we don't want multiple meanings of assert. It seems that if we could get this to work properly that it would be easiest as well. Nate
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
