> > 1. I like the idea of moving this out of x86, although practically speaking I > don't know that any other ISA would be able to use it right now. I'll still > move it though. This is, of course, talking about the faults themselves and > not the instruction objects. The instructions are x86 specific. > > Right, I'm just talking about the fault objects, and even though no other ISA uses them right now this at least opens up that possibility for the future.
> 2. Ok. I don't really see how it's better, but I don't think it's worse. > > Thanks. > 3. Yes. X86 uses all those for it's debugging microops. They were brought > into existence so that those microops could be speculatively executed safely. > > If it's purely for debugging, then would DPRINTF be more appropriate than warn? I still don't quite understand your usage model here. Also, how do we distinguish panic from fatal in this case? I guess it's hard to decide a priori when you get something like a machine-check error whether that's due to a user error or an M5 bug, but I'd think we would pick one or the other (probably assume it's a user problem, like a bad kernel or device, and call it fatal) in which case we wouldn't need panic. Steve
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
