I did. I also found a bug in SPARC which has been in there since
November of 2006. The parenthesis in inUserMode are wrong so that when
tracing in FS mode, it tries to access the wrong miscreg which happens
to panic. I'm running SPARC regressions right now, and assuming they
pass, is that
I did. I also found a bug in SPARC which has been in there since
November of 2006. The parenthesis in inUserMode are wrong so that when
tracing in FS mode, it tries to access the wrong miscreg which happens
to panic. I'm running SPARC regressions right now, and assuming they
pass, is that
The stable repository is now up to date with the development repository.
Gabe
___
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
The stable repository is now up to date with the development repository.
Not that I think it's a bad thing to update stable, but did you verify
that all regressions pass? For example, I think that there are still
two inorder regressions that fail. Also, are there any known bugs at
this point
nathan binkert wrote:
The stable repository is now up to date with the development repository.
Not that I think it's a bad thing to update stable, but did you verify
that all regressions pass? For example, I think that there are still
two inorder regressions that fail. Also, are there
Can you at least update that regression? I think it's just very
slight stats diffs and Korey thought they were fine.
Nate
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Gabe Blackgbl...@eecs.umich.edu wrote:
nathan binkert wrote:
The stable repository is now up to date with the development repository.
I just tried to compile m5 on a fc9 machine and it didn't work
We shouldn't push stable until I get that fixed...
Ali
___
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
That's odd. I thought I had done that. What compiler is it? What swig, etc?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Ali Saidi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just tried to compile m5 on a fc9 machine and it didn't work
We shouldn't push stable until I get that fixed...
Ali
It's the mysql version string in compare versions. I thought I fixed
it, but I'm looking at it now...
Ali
On Oct 8, 2008, at 4:09 PM, nathan binkert wrote:
That's odd. I thought I had done that. What compiler is it? What
swig, etc?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Ali Saidi [EMAIL
I just pushed a fix I wrote it and I thought I had committed it,
but apparently not.
Ali
On Oct 8, 2008, at 6:18 PM, Ali Saidi wrote:
It's the mysql version string in compare versions. I thought I fixed
it, but I'm looking at it now...
Ali
On Oct 8, 2008, at 4:09 PM, nathan binkert
Seems ready to me.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is everything ready for stable now?
Gabe
Quoting Ali Saidi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I just pushed a fix I wrote it and I thought I had committed it,
but apparently not.
Ali
On Oct 8, 2008, at 6:18
I'm running a full set of regressions and I will commit all of the
output so that there will be no differences. Other than that, the
only thing left is the problem in the mips register file. Diff #3
that I sent the other day is not actually correct, but it would at
least generate an assertion
1.99? Or did we already have one of those?
Gabe
nathan binkert wrote:
I'm running a full set of regressions and I will commit all of the
output so that there will be no differences. Other than that, the
only thing left is the problem in the mips register file. Diff #3
that I sent the other
Do you want to hold off on letting a stable out for this stuff? I'd
say that we need to get stable done to allow things into the tree, and
we can try to make this a part of the next stable release which we can
target as 2.0.
Nate
I think high on the list needs to be a clean-up of the
I could go either way. If it forced us to just get it done in 2 or 3
days then it would be worth it. Otherwise, we should push it off, but
not too far.
Ali
On Sep 26, 2008, at 11:51 PM, nathan binkert wrote:
Do you want to hold off on letting a stable out for this stuff? I'd
say that we
Maybe we should start by going through flyspray and determining what
issues still exist and which need to be closed. It would be nice to
get a 2.0 release done, but it seems hard to say that we could do that
in 2 or 3 days. I could put some serious effort into it after ISCA is
over and try to
nathan binkert wrote:
I'll give it a look and see if I can figure out what's wrong.
It would also be awesome if you can take a look at the perlbmk
problem. You can talk to Gabe about it, but I don't think he was able
to figure it out.
Hope you had a relaxing trip!
Nate
how long has SMT regressions been broke? Is this a new thing?
I havent looked at O3 SMT in awhile, but I would assume the O3 changes
over the past year or so take my fix time way up!
Is there a particular changeset or marker where we can say it broke here...?
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:25 PM,
alright, i'll dig a little and see what's up.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:27 AM, nathan binkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how long has SMT regressions been broke? Is this a new thing?
I havent looked at O3 SMT in awhile, but I would assume the O3 changes
over the past year or so take my fix time
What's still left to do for stable? There's the SMT regression
failure. Korey or Kevin can you guys look into that so we can get
this done? Is there anything else? I have stuff just waiting to get
into the tree and I'm holding off for this stable release.
Nate
Statistics cleanup? gcc 4.2?
Ali
On Sep 6, 2008, at 1:25 PM, nathan binkert wrote:
What's still left to do for stable? There's the SMT regression
failure. Korey or Kevin can you guys look into that so we can get
this done? Is there anything else? I have stuff just waiting to get
into
I'm going to be gone starting on Wednesday until Sept. 6th, so I won't
have a chance to take a look at the regression errors before hand.
I'll try to take a look when I come back.
Kevin
Quoting Ali Saidi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From the release notes the following are still outstanding for a
Everyone should hold off pushing patches to the dev tree for the next
two weeks so we can create a new stable release. Please only push
fixes to known problems and test the repository in the next two weeks.
Thanks,
Ali
___
m5-dev mailing list
From the release notes the following are still outstanding for a 2.0
release. I don't really care about the Cygwin problems and I'm not
sure that anyone else does, so I move to strike those. Additionally,
we made the repository public so that one is gone.
I think the three things that
We should also figure out why the all regressions failed completely
last night.
Gabe Black wrote:
I'm pretty sure that perlbmk bug is still there and we just got rid of
the regression. It might have gone away on it's own, but I don't think
anyone actively tried to fix it.
Gabe
Ali Saidi
There was a change that Ke Meng sent that fixed some problems with O3
in Alpha deadlocking. That fixed quite possibly fixed this as well.
Ali
On Aug 24, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Gabe Black wrote:
I'm pretty sure that perlbmk bug is still there and we just got rid of
the regression. It might have
Because the machines were busy, which meant that the jobs timed out.
Ali
On Aug 24, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Gabe Black wrote:
We should also figure out why the all regressions failed completely
last night.
Gabe Black wrote:
I'm pretty sure that perlbmk bug is still there and we just got rid
27 matches
Mail list logo
