`get_runtime_isa()` has been deprecated for some time. It is a leftover
piece of code from when gem5 was compiled to a single ISA and that ISA
used to configure the simulated system to use that ISA. Since multi-ISA
compilations are possible, `get_runtime_isa()` should not be used.
Unless the gem5 binary is compiled to a single ISA, a failure will
occur.
The new proceedure for specify which ISA to use is by the setting of the
correct `BaseCPU` implementation. E.g., `X86SimpleTimingCPU` of
`ArmO3CPU`.
This patch removes the remaining `get_runtime_isa()` instances and
removes the function itself. The `SimpleCore` class has been updated to
allow for it's CPU factory to return a class, needed by scripts in
"configs/common".
The deprecated functionality in the standard library, which allowed for
the specifying of an ISA when setting up a processor and/or core has
also been removed. Setting an ISA is now manditory.
Fixes#216.
The TARGET_ISA variable would let you select one ISA from a list of
possible ISAs. That has now been replaced with USE_ARM_ISA, USE_X86_ISA,
etc, variables which are boolean on or off. That will allow any number
of ISAs to be enabled or disabled individually. Enabling something other
than exactly one of these will probably prevent you from getting a
working gem5 binary, but those problems are being addressed in other,
parallel change series.
I decided to use the USE_ prefix since it was consistent with most other
on/off variables we have in gem5. One noteable exception is the
BUILD_GPU setting which, you could convincingly argue, is a better
prefix than USE_. Another option would be to use CONFIG_, in
anticipation of using a kconfig style config mechanism in gem5.
It seemed premature to start using a CONFIG_ prefix here, and if we
decide to switch to some other prefix like BUILD_, it should be a
purposeful choice and not something somebody just starts using.
Change-Id: I90fef2835aa4712782e6c1313fbf564d0ed45538
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/52491
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jason Lowe-Power <power.jg@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com>
The workload object is still optional for the sake of compatibility,
even though it probably shouldn't be in the long term. If a simulation
is just a collection of components with nothing in particular running on
it, for instance driven by a traffic generator, should it even have a
System object in the first place?
Change-Id: I8bcda72bdfa3730248226fb62f0bba9a83243d95
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/33278
Reviewed-by: Matthew Poremba <matthew.poremba@amd.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
