Hi Jason, thanks for replying. Actually, I am using SE mode and currently relying on printings from the benchmarks themselves (these are SPEC2006 benchmarks). I expect that due to different implementation of syscalls, some executed portion can be different, but even the printings from benchmarks for ARM and x86 (say till X number of pseudo instructions calls) are not in sync. In other words, I expect that when a particular function in the benchmark (where I have placed pseudo instruction) is called Xth time, the same work should have been done by both binaries if the input is same in both cases. That does not seem to be the case !
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jason Lowe-Power <ja...@lowepower.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Another difference between ARM and x86 is the OS that you're using. Maybe > the different paths are actually different paths through the OS (or > interrupts, etc.) and not different paths through your binaries. Even in SE > mode there may be different code paths based on how the syscalls are > implemented. > > I would check the output of your benchmarks (maybe add some debug printfs > in the benchmarks) to check to see what is happening. > > Jason > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 1:12 PM Ayaz Akram <aaq...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello ! >> >> I am trying to use gem5 pseudo instructions inside code of a benchmark to >> create checkpoints at certain points in program execution (after pseudo >> instruction is called for a specific number of times). The benchmark is >> compiled for both Arm and x86. Once checkpoint is created I run the >> benchmark till one more call to the pseudo instruction. The problem is >> that x86 and arm differ in their path of execution (when run from >> checkpoint), as x86 gets the one more pseduo-ins call after hundreds of >> millions of instructions while arm does that after only a few million >> instructions. I don't see any issues with the benchmark binaries, >> compilation process, path of the input files. I wonder if the way the >> checkpoints are created for different ISAs can result into such an issue ? >> I will appreciate if someone can point out something I might be missing. >> >> >> -Thanks for your time ! >> _______________________________________________ >> gem5-users mailing list >> gem5-users@gem5.org >> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users > > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-users mailing list > gem5-users@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >
_______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list gem5-users@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
