readBytes and writeBytes had the word "bytes" in their names because they
accessed blobs of bytes. This distinguished them from the read and write
functions which handled higher level data types. Because those functions don't
exist any more, this change renames readBytes and writeBytes to more general
names, readMem and writeMem, which reflect the fact that they are how you read
and write memory. This also makes their names more consistent with the
register reading/writing functions, although those are still read and set for
some reason.
This patch updates the regression outputs for Ruby memtest. This was
required because of the changes carried out by the addition of functional
access support to Ruby.
This patch rpovides functional access support in Ruby. Currently only
the M5Port of RubyPort supports functional accesses. The support for
functional through the PioPort will be added as a separate patch.
A few prior changesets have changed the gem5 output in a way that wont cause
errors but may be confusing for someone trying to debug the regressions. Ones that I caught
were:
- no more "warn: <hash address"
- typo in the ALPHA Prefetch unimplemented warning
Additionaly, the last updated stats changes rearrange the ordering of the stats output even though
they are still correct stats (gem5 is smart enough to detect this). All the regressions pass
w/the same stats even though it looks like they are being changed.
The DTB expects the correct PC in the ThreadContext
but how if the memory accesses are speculative? Shouldn't
we send along the requestor's PC to the translate functions?
if a faulting instruction reaches an execution unit,
then ignore it and pass it through the pipeline.
Once we recognize the fault in the graduation unit,
dont allow a second fault to creep in on the same cycle.
Before graduating an instruction, explicitly check fault
by making the fault check it's own separate command
that can be put on an instruction schedule.
this always changes the PC and is basically an impromptu branch instruction. why
not speculate on this instead of always be forced to mispredict/squash after the
hwrei gets resolved?
The InOrder model needs this marked as "isControl" so it knows to update the PC
after the ALU executes it. If this isnt marked as control, then it's going to
force the model to check the PC of every instruction at commit (what O3 does?),
and that would be a wasteful check for a very high percentage of instructions.
