These versions of g++ don't handle parameter pack expansion correctly
when there is a parameter pack defined at the class level and then one
which is defined by the constructor itself. Even though it knows what
the outter parameter pack contains, it still re-assigns it to be empty
and puts all arguments into the later parameter pack.
To work around this problem, we will explicitly put the class level
parameters into a tuple, which we then have to go through extra
acrobatics to explode and pass into base class constructors.
That also means that in all subclasses, the arguments which go into the
tuple need to be wrapped in {}s to group them into constructor arguments
for the tuple.
Change-Id: I3139eebd7042b02f50862d88be5c940583a2a809
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/45820
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Maintainer: Bobby R. Bruce <bbruce@ucdavis.edu>
Reviewed-by: Matt Sinclair <mattdsinclair@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Bobby R. Bruce <bbruce@ucdavis.edu>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
When a fault is generated, it needs to be returned, and nothing else
should be done. There's no point in keeping it around and having to
check over and over if there was a fault and if other parts of the
execute functions should be skipped.
This simplifies the logic a bit which should speed up execution, and
also makes life easier for the compiler since behavior is obvious and
doesn't have to be deduced from possible data values and ifs.
Change-Id: I2004c7d22ac6222e1ef2acb51d49b4eb2e60b144
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/45520
Maintainer: Bobby R. Bruce <bbruce@ucdavis.edu>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Ayaz Akram <yazakram@ucdavis.edu>
The first non-critical piece of this CL removes the unused self
from the Python function signature.
Then also includes "stl.h" from pybind11 to allow the
implicit conversion from std::map<std::string, std::string>
to a Python dict (otherwise there will be a runtime (not compile time)
error when calling the function.
As the current implementation always throws an error because of the
missing stl.h I don't believe anyone is using this function, and as such
it should be safe to just change the signature of
scx_get_parameter_list.
Change-Id: Ib3202b2d4d1b8418a4adf54739fe389d4ee07743
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/45622
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
This should be either the fixed index if there are no predicated
operands (ie operands which may not be used), and an auto incrementing
index otherwise. This is still not bulletproof since the auto
incrementing index is just code which ++-es the index, and so the index
will be different and incremented each time that value is substituted
in.
Also, the mixture of predicated operands and the vector operands is
broken and will not generate compilable code, but I'm not going to try
to fix that here.
Change-Id: I1ceae519649762e54eaa019610e51bb8c21d28d6
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/42970
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
These are currently only used in the reg, float and media ops, but
should be expanded to the other types eventually. This is part of an
attempt to use common machinery for the microops instead of having
each type recreate the mechanisms it needs locally.
Change-Id: I67f521b6b161310ba50a30ac4c73305cc75a63d5
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/42969
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Instead of having a bunch of implicit integer registers which are
identified only by number, except in the ISA description where there are
operands hard coded to certain numeric offsets into the implicit
registers, and having an independent count of those implicit registers,
just create a set of named indices for the registers we need.
Redefine NUM_INTREGS to be the total number of registers, and
NUM_ARCH_INTREGS to be the number of architectural integer registers.
Instead of using NUM_INTREGS as a coincidental short hand for the first
microop register (since that comes after the architectural ones), and
implicitly knowing that that's the zero register, define an INTREG_T0
constant which at least makes it clear what register we're talking
about, even if it's not clear that the semantics of that register make
it mostly a placeholder.
Change-Id: I5fa41169b9619ea68a50d6d5241ff9a07440bceb
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/42523
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
Re-upload of https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/41214
This provides a layer of indirection where the rounding mode
setting/getting code will do nothing if fenv.h isn't available. At build
time, if fenv.h can't be found, a warning is printed.
Also, the include for fenv.h was guarded in the includes in the ISA
header, but the functions from it weren't guarded in the actual code.
Finally, the code was setting the rounding mode, but not setting it
back. That would mean running these instructions would set the rounding
mode in gem5 as a whole, affecting its other behaviors and any other
instructions that might expect the default rounding mode.
Change-Id: I3ff2b97189487579554aae890e14889bd63461d2
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/44085
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
The code in the body of a DPRINTF will always be compiled, even if it's
disabled. If TRACING_ON is false, the if around it will short circuit to
false without actually running any code to check the specified
condition, and the body of the if will be elided by the compiler as
unreachable code.
This creates a more consistent environment whether TRACING_ON is on or
not, so that variables which are only used in DPRINTF don't have to be
guarded by their own TRACING_ON #ifs at the call site. It also ensures
that the code inside DPRINTF is always checked to be valid code, even if
the DPRINTF itself will never go off. This helps avoid syntax errors,
etc, which aren't found because of the configuration of the build being
tested with.
Change-Id: Ia95ae229ebcd2fc9828f62e87f037f76b9279819
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/44988
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Carvalho <odanrc@yahoo.com.br>
These would extract particular numbered source or destination registers
from an instruction and feed them into a printReg method. Now that the
register operands know how to print themselves with printReg directly,
these methods are no longer used.
Change-Id: I4244cb2ee97015f51f4783f377282e2a1db5d69b
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/42363
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
These methods had looked up the register index using an index into the
src or dest index arrays. This level of indirection is less efficient
than using the index itself (which we know already), and also requires
that the array is layed out like how we think it is.
Before:
array idx => reg idx => folded?
After:
reg idx => folded?
Change-Id: Ice2262250ff77582ba5530fc52e6738ba1bebe18
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/42356
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
These were a weird holdover from when register indices were all squished
into a single scalar value, offset based on the register type. When that
change happened, the person who made it misunderstood what the
InstRegIndex type was for, and decided to build RegId into it for some
reason. The only purpose of InstRegIndex is to make sure everybody
agrees that the value being passed around is going to be used as a
register index and not a literal value, or vice versa. There is no type
associated with it as far as floating point, integer, or misc registers.
That gets applied at a different step, and actually can't be part of
InstRegIndex since the same base class may need to hold register indices
that are going to be treated as integer or floating point depending on
the subclass using them.
Also, since the values of the various constants in the DepdenceTags enum
where never actually added into register indices in the first place, the
code in the InstRegIndex constructor would never do anything. All
registers would be arbitrarily sorted into Int, FP, etc, and then when
they actually went to be used the category would be thrown away.
Change-Id: I8c4e8d6e9cdb53e298c00ad2f56e8c7304e51e96
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/40339
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabe.black@gmail.com>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
