Great,
good work Nilay.
Thanks for the update Tony!
-Korey
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Anthony Gutierrez wrote:
> It's already been pushed:
>
> http://repo.gem5.org/gem5/rev/d059f8a95a42
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Korey Sewell wrote:
>
> > For 2 and 3 below, what are the other s
It's already been pushed:
http://repo.gem5.org/gem5/rev/d059f8a95a42
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Korey Sewell wrote:
> For 2 and 3 below, what are the other stats changes? I'd expect some small
> difference due to introduction of a slightly new feature in the inorder
> model and I think i
For 2 and 3 below, what are the other stats changes? I'd expect some small
difference due to introduction of a slightly new feature in the inorder
model and I think it'd be OK to commit in those sparc cases. I'm more
worried if you are breaking for alpha or mips since those are more tested
in the
I think the parser issues we've had before and it even depends on how it
is executed on zizzer (on command line, through python, and even with
different ways of invoking it through python)
Andreas
On 24/01/2013 18:17, "Nilay" wrote:
>On Thu, January 24, 2013 8:50 am, Nilay wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan
On Thu, January 24, 2013 8:50 am, Nilay wrote:
> On Thu, January 24, 2013 3:08 am, Nilay wrote:
>
>>
>> Seems like I will not be able to keep my promise. Following differences
>> were found after running all the regression tests --
>>
>> 1. tests/long/se/20.parser/ref/arm/linux/o3-timing/
>> sim_
On Thu, January 24, 2013 3:08 am, Nilay wrote:
>
> Seems like I will not be able to keep my promise. Following differences
> were found after running all the regression tests --
>
> 1. tests/long/se/20.parser/ref/arm/linux/o3-timing/
> sim_insts 505237723 505237723
On Tue, January 15, 2013 6:15 pm, Ali Saidi wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Nilay Vaish wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ali Saidi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
On Jan. 8, 2013, 6:29 a.m., Ali Saidi wrote:
> Hi Nilay,
>
> Thanks for resurrecting this. In principle I have no issues, I
Hey,
I looked through this patch and I think:
(1) The new code is making use of a variable "pushedRAS" that is not being
updated for the predictInOrder function
(2) The code could be consolidated even more (the predict() functions are
awful similar)
For (1), on line 191 the pushedRAS variable is g
On Tue, January 15, 2013 6:51 pm, Nilay wrote:
> On Tue, January 15, 2013 6:24 pm, Korey Sewell wrote:
>> Can I review this change again before commit? Or can you separate the
>> patch
>> into inorder/o3 portions?
>> If you give me through this weekend I can try to figure out why
>> combining
>> t
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1602/
---
(Updated Jan. 15, 2013, 5:25 p.m.)
Review request for Default.
Description (updat
On Tue, January 15, 2013 6:24 pm, Korey Sewell wrote:
> Can I review this change again before commit? Or can you separate the
> patch
> into inorder/o3 portions?
> If you give me through this weekend I can try to figure out why combining
> the code is causing stats differences.
You are free to rev
Can I review this change again before commit? Or can you separate the patch
into inorder/o3 portions?
If you give me through this weekend I can try to figure out why combining
the code is causing stats differences.
-Korey
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Ali Saidi wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2013, at
On Jan 15, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Nilay Vaish wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ali Saidi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan. 8, 2013, 6:29 a.m., Ali Saidi wrote:
Hi Nilay,
Thanks for resurrecting this. In principle I have no issues, I just would
like to make sure that the moved code incl
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ali Saidi wrote:
On Jan. 8, 2013, 6:29 a.m., Ali Saidi wrote:
Hi Nilay,
Thanks for resurrecting this. In principle I have no issues, I just would like
to make sure that the moved code includes all the latest fixes to the branch
predictor that numerous people have cont
> On Jan. 8, 2013, 6:29 a.m., Ali Saidi wrote:
> > Hi Nilay,
> >
> > Thanks for resurrecting this. In principle I have no issues, I just would
> > like to make sure that the moved code includes all the latest fixes to the
> > branch predictor that numerous people have contributed to. If so and
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Ali Saidi wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1602/#review3790
---
Ship it!
Hi Nilay,
Thanks for r
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1602/#review3790
---
Ship it!
Hi Nilay,
Thanks for resurrecting this. In principle I have no
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1602/
---
Review request for Default.
Description
---
Changeset 9383:7a322ca1288f
--
18 matches
Mail list logo
