From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25776 invoked by alias); 18 May 2012 12:52:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 25759 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2012 12:52:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 May 2012 12:52:29 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4ICqSlv012403 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 18 May 2012 08:52:28 -0400 Received: from fche.csb (vpn-9-186.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.9.186]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4ICqRos018108; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:52:28 -0400 Received: by fche.csb (Postfix, from userid 2569) id 460495813C; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:52:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:52:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Peter Gavin Cc: cgen@sourceware.org, sid@sourceware.org Subject: Re: cgen, GNU gdb/sim, and full system simulation Message-ID: <20120518125227.GE11460@redhat.com> References: <20120516163407.GC32524@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact sid-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: sid-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-q2/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 Hi, Peter - > Ok. But we're primarily doing this for GDB, and I suppose gdb can't > use sid, is that right? gdb can use sid (via the remote protocol). Several gdb/toolchain ports have used sid as the execution backend for e.g. testsuites. > [...] > > To me, the more interesting question would be the choice to model > > virtual memory as a separate component between the CPU and the memory > > and I/O buses (which would suite sid's modeling very well), vs > > something purely internal to the CPU model. > > Yeah, I was hoping I could just define a memory in the .cpu file with > define-hardware and have custom get and set methods, but it looks like > that won't work :) Yeah, cgen by itself is not well-suited for modeling such aspects of the microarchitecture. - FChE