Searched hist:12595 (Results 1 - 11 of 11) sorted by relevance
| /gem5/src/arch/arm/isa/formats/ | ||
| H A D | mult.isa | 12595:b5a51007feac Mon Feb 19 14:02:00 EST 2018 Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> arm: Fix implicit-fallthrough warnings when building with gcc-7+ gcc 7 onwards have additional heuristics to detect implicit fallthroughs and it fails the build with warnings for ARM as a result. There was one gcc bug[1] that I fixed but the rest are cases that gcc cannot detect due to the point at which it does the fallthrough check. Most of this patch adds __builtin_unreachable() hints in places that throw this warning to indicate to gcc that the fallthrough will never happen. The remaining cases are actually possible fallthroughs due to incorrect code running on the simulator; in which case an Unknown instruction is returned. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01105.html Change-Id: I1baa9fa0ed15181c10c755c0bd777f88b607c158 Signed-off-by: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/8541 Reviewed-by: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> Maintainer: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> |
| H A D | neon64.isa | 12595:b5a51007feac Mon Feb 19 14:02:00 EST 2018 Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> arm: Fix implicit-fallthrough warnings when building with gcc-7+ gcc 7 onwards have additional heuristics to detect implicit fallthroughs and it fails the build with warnings for ARM as a result. There was one gcc bug[1] that I fixed but the rest are cases that gcc cannot detect due to the point at which it does the fallthrough check. Most of this patch adds __builtin_unreachable() hints in places that throw this warning to indicate to gcc that the fallthrough will never happen. The remaining cases are actually possible fallthroughs due to incorrect code running on the simulator; in which case an Unknown instruction is returned. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01105.html Change-Id: I1baa9fa0ed15181c10c755c0bd777f88b607c158 Signed-off-by: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/8541 Reviewed-by: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> Maintainer: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> |
| H A D | m5ops.isa | 12595:b5a51007feac Mon Feb 19 14:02:00 EST 2018 Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> arm: Fix implicit-fallthrough warnings when building with gcc-7+ gcc 7 onwards have additional heuristics to detect implicit fallthroughs and it fails the build with warnings for ARM as a result. There was one gcc bug[1] that I fixed but the rest are cases that gcc cannot detect due to the point at which it does the fallthrough check. Most of this patch adds __builtin_unreachable() hints in places that throw this warning to indicate to gcc that the fallthrough will never happen. The remaining cases are actually possible fallthroughs due to incorrect code running on the simulator; in which case an Unknown instruction is returned. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01105.html Change-Id: I1baa9fa0ed15181c10c755c0bd777f88b607c158 Signed-off-by: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/8541 Reviewed-by: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> Maintainer: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> |
| H A D | mem.isa | 12595:b5a51007feac Mon Feb 19 14:02:00 EST 2018 Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> arm: Fix implicit-fallthrough warnings when building with gcc-7+ gcc 7 onwards have additional heuristics to detect implicit fallthroughs and it fails the build with warnings for ARM as a result. There was one gcc bug[1] that I fixed but the rest are cases that gcc cannot detect due to the point at which it does the fallthrough check. Most of this patch adds __builtin_unreachable() hints in places that throw this warning to indicate to gcc that the fallthrough will never happen. The remaining cases are actually possible fallthroughs due to incorrect code running on the simulator; in which case an Unknown instruction is returned. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01105.html Change-Id: I1baa9fa0ed15181c10c755c0bd777f88b607c158 Signed-off-by: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/8541 Reviewed-by: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> Maintainer: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> |
| H A D | data.isa | 12595:b5a51007feac Mon Feb 19 14:02:00 EST 2018 Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> arm: Fix implicit-fallthrough warnings when building with gcc-7+ gcc 7 onwards have additional heuristics to detect implicit fallthroughs and it fails the build with warnings for ARM as a result. There was one gcc bug[1] that I fixed but the rest are cases that gcc cannot detect due to the point at which it does the fallthrough check. Most of this patch adds __builtin_unreachable() hints in places that throw this warning to indicate to gcc that the fallthrough will never happen. The remaining cases are actually possible fallthroughs due to incorrect code running on the simulator; in which case an Unknown instruction is returned. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01105.html Change-Id: I1baa9fa0ed15181c10c755c0bd777f88b607c158 Signed-off-by: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/8541 Reviewed-by: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> Maintainer: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> |
| H A D | fp.isa | 12595:b5a51007feac Mon Feb 19 14:02:00 EST 2018 Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> arm: Fix implicit-fallthrough warnings when building with gcc-7+ gcc 7 onwards have additional heuristics to detect implicit fallthroughs and it fails the build with warnings for ARM as a result. There was one gcc bug[1] that I fixed but the rest are cases that gcc cannot detect due to the point at which it does the fallthrough check. Most of this patch adds __builtin_unreachable() hints in places that throw this warning to indicate to gcc that the fallthrough will never happen. The remaining cases are actually possible fallthroughs due to incorrect code running on the simulator; in which case an Unknown instruction is returned. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01105.html Change-Id: I1baa9fa0ed15181c10c755c0bd777f88b607c158 Signed-off-by: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/8541 Reviewed-by: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> Maintainer: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> |
| H A D | aarch64.isa | 12595:b5a51007feac Mon Feb 19 14:02:00 EST 2018 Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> arm: Fix implicit-fallthrough warnings when building with gcc-7+ gcc 7 onwards have additional heuristics to detect implicit fallthroughs and it fails the build with warnings for ARM as a result. There was one gcc bug[1] that I fixed but the rest are cases that gcc cannot detect due to the point at which it does the fallthrough check. Most of this patch adds __builtin_unreachable() hints in places that throw this warning to indicate to gcc that the fallthrough will never happen. The remaining cases are actually possible fallthroughs due to incorrect code running on the simulator; in which case an Unknown instruction is returned. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01105.html Change-Id: I1baa9fa0ed15181c10c755c0bd777f88b607c158 Signed-off-by: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/8541 Reviewed-by: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> Maintainer: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> |
| /gem5/src/base/ | ||
| H A D | compiler.hh | 12595:b5a51007feac Mon Feb 19 14:02:00 EST 2018 Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> arm: Fix implicit-fallthrough warnings when building with gcc-7+ gcc 7 onwards have additional heuristics to detect implicit fallthroughs and it fails the build with warnings for ARM as a result. There was one gcc bug[1] that I fixed but the rest are cases that gcc cannot detect due to the point at which it does the fallthrough check. Most of this patch adds __builtin_unreachable() hints in places that throw this warning to indicate to gcc that the fallthrough will never happen. The remaining cases are actually possible fallthroughs due to incorrect code running on the simulator; in which case an Unknown instruction is returned. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01105.html Change-Id: I1baa9fa0ed15181c10c755c0bd777f88b607c158 Signed-off-by: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/8541 Reviewed-by: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> Maintainer: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> |
| /gem5/src/arch/arm/insts/ | ||
| H A D | pred_inst.hh | 12595:b5a51007feac Mon Feb 19 14:02:00 EST 2018 Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> arm: Fix implicit-fallthrough warnings when building with gcc-7+ gcc 7 onwards have additional heuristics to detect implicit fallthroughs and it fails the build with warnings for ARM as a result. There was one gcc bug[1] that I fixed but the rest are cases that gcc cannot detect due to the point at which it does the fallthrough check. Most of this patch adds __builtin_unreachable() hints in places that throw this warning to indicate to gcc that the fallthrough will never happen. The remaining cases are actually possible fallthroughs due to incorrect code running on the simulator; in which case an Unknown instruction is returned. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01105.html Change-Id: I1baa9fa0ed15181c10c755c0bd777f88b607c158 Signed-off-by: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/8541 Reviewed-by: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> Maintainer: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> |
| /gem5/src/systemc/core/ | ||
| H A D | scheduler.hh | 13176:76f52e8d8c6a Wed Sep 05 20:21:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Match how Accellera schedules processes even more closely. The Accellera implementation runs processes in a cycle where it first runs all the methods it has, then all the threads, and then starts again in case any new methods have been scheduled. This keeps methods and processes in the order they were marked ready (what a prior change made this scheduler do), but also keeps the methods together and the threads together (something it used to do, but that change made it stop doing). This change should make the gem5 scheduler match in both respects. Note that its correct to run the processes in whatever order we want, it's just that if we're going to compare against the "golden" output from the Accellera tests, we need to match the order to get sensible results. Change-Id: I0b1e4ed24c56f97921148b74e90c2dca5fd3fbc4 Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12595 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| H A D | scheduler.cc | 13176:76f52e8d8c6a Wed Sep 05 20:21:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Match how Accellera schedules processes even more closely. The Accellera implementation runs processes in a cycle where it first runs all the methods it has, then all the threads, and then starts again in case any new methods have been scheduled. This keeps methods and processes in the order they were marked ready (what a prior change made this scheduler do), but also keeps the methods together and the threads together (something it used to do, but that change made it stop doing). This change should make the gem5 scheduler match in both respects. Note that its correct to run the processes in whatever order we want, it's just that if we're going to compare against the "golden" output from the Accellera tests, we need to match the order to get sensible results. Change-Id: I0b1e4ed24c56f97921148b74e90c2dca5fd3fbc4 Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12595 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
Completed in 46 milliseconds