There was a bug in the cpu2000.py file where mcf (and several of the other SPEC2k benchmarks) were getting the wrong input files. From the list archives, this is what I sent out: gzip_source: the second input should be '60', not '1' mcf: should get inp.in as argument, not mcf.in parser: needs ref.in on stdin equake: needs inp.in on stdin facerec: needs ref.in on stdin lucas: needs lucas2.in on stdin sixtrack: needs inp.in on stdin
This was as of Jan 7 of this year; I don't know if this got fixed in a more recent version (or which version you're using). -Vilas On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Gabe Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We use mcf as a regression test so it at least works a little. If it only > runs a few thousand instructions, it's likely either the standard library > initialization is failing, or mcf itself is quiting with an error very early > in execution. If you haven't yet, you should check it's output and see if > there are any messages. Also, with so few instructions, it should be fairly > easy to add --trace-flags=Exec --trace-file=trace.out to your command line > and inspect what it's doing directly. The function it's executing last > should be a good clue as to what's going on. > > Gabe > > > Shoaib Akram wrote: > > > Did anybody tried running mcf benchmark in SE mode. All of the other > > SPEC CINT benchmarks I am using run for millions of instructions but mcf > > runs for a couple of thousand even under ref input. > > _______________________________________________ > > m5-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > m5-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users >
_______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
