On Nov. 18, 2014, 10:43 p.m., Gabe Black wrote:
util/m5/m5ops.h, line 57
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/diff/4/?file=42082#file42082line57
Why do we need psuedo ops for syscalls when there are actual syscall
instructions? The same goes for page faults. I'm not saying I know that
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/#review5487
---
src/arch/arm/pseudo_inst.cc
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/#comment4939
On Nov. 18, 2014, 10:43 p.m., Gabe Black wrote:
util/m5/m5ops.h, line 57
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/diff/4/?file=42082#file42082line57
Why do we need psuedo ops for syscalls when there are actual syscall
instructions? The same goes for page faults. I'm not saying I know that
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/
---
(Updated Nov. 20, 2014, 12:36 a.m.)
Review request for Default.
Changes
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/#review5480
---
src/arch/x86/pseudo_inst.hh
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/#comment4930
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/#review5413
---
src/sim/pseudo_inst.cc
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/#comment4900
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/
---
(Updated Sept. 30, 2014, 4:21 p.m.)
Review request for Default.
Changes
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/#review5338
---
src/arch/x86/tlb.cc
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/#comment4848
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/
---
(Updated Sept. 16, 2014, 3:34 p.m.)
Review request for Default.
Changes
---
On Aug. 14, 2014, 10:05 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote:
I'm really not happy about the use of kvm-specific ports magic here. It
would have been nicer having a m5ops based interface that just passes the
fault/syscall to the arch-specific code from any CPU model that uses the
m5ops
On Aug. 14, 2014, 10:05 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote:
I'm really not happy about the use of kvm-specific ports magic here. It
would have been nicer having a m5ops based interface that just passes the
fault/syscall to the arch-specific code from any CPU model that uses the
m5ops
On Aug. 14, 2014, 10:05 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote:
I'm really not happy about the use of kvm-specific ports magic here. It
would have been nicer having a m5ops based interface that just passes the
fault/syscall to the arch-specific code from any CPU model that uses the
m5ops
On Aug. 14, 2014, 10:05 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote:
I'm really not happy about the use of kvm-specific ports magic here. It
would have been nicer having a m5ops based interface that just passes the
fault/syscall to the arch-specific code from any CPU model that uses the
m5ops
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2313/#review5250
---
I'm really not happy about the use of kvm-specific ports magic here. It
14 matches
Mail list logo
