These warnings were removed when the functionality they warned about
was implemented, but there were some leftovers like unnecessary
includes and some helper functions which hid gem5 specific headers
from the ext directory.
Change-Id: Ic886ac0f1264687524e3a7b7eaab8836f318a5a2
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13398
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
The scheduler is an internal detail and shouldn't be exposed to the
headers in ext. It would transitively include more headers which are
not in ext, making it not self contained.
Change-Id: I8384cde9d19363953ffd0c91e7d8d27f8f79a570
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13336
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
This is to avoid having to expose the scheduler (which tracks the
current process) to header files which should be independent of gem5
and the underlying implementation.
Change-Id: I1b0810ab66c3ce52b5b94236d7df86da66a62472
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13335
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
STL containers may need to be constructed before they're used. Don't
count on being able to insert into them during a static initializer.
Change-Id: Icb05d5084a470e1ebd976ae6e1954b1a78aabd6a
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13329
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
This is in contrast to how Accellera actually implements it, implying
they would fail their own test.
The specific difference is that suppress_id should only suppress
SC_INFO and SC_WARNING, not all severity levels like the Accellera
implementation will do.
Change-Id: I34f0d2d5912548963433a785cfa6ef88ad818042
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13320
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
This is actually not consistent with how it was handled in 2.0.1 which
is supposedly what this is supposed to be backwards compatible with,
in that in the earlier version on info and warning messages were
suppressed. This is exposed by one of the tests,
utils/sc_report/test01, which suppresses an integer ID and then reports
an error with it. The "golden" output shows the message supressed, but
the actual implementation makes no such distinction.
This implementation duplicates Accelleras for now, but a future change
will make it consistent with the old implementation so the test will
pass.
Change-Id: I8f959321151e2bb60b94000594f30531b80e2684
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13319
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
There's a deprecated reporting mechanism based on integer message ids,
and the reporting mechanism needs to be refactored a bit to make it
easier to support.
Some bookkeeping data structures were moved out to somewhere they
can be accessed by other code, obviating the non-standard get_handler
function.
Change-Id: Id427cd79be9ef0f3275fbac39ff047ab672fb3e0
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13318
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
These arguments were originally just to make sure arguments could be
successfully passed to sc_main, but serve no intrinsic purpose. There
are some tests which can accept command line arguments to customize
how they run, and having nonsense arguments confuses them and makes
them behave incorrectly.
Change-Id: Ib328edb12e01a97dca778bbf45b10e91dd8c07a6
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13317
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
When resetting a process which is ready pending coming out of suspend,
clear that state since the process is about to run in service of the
reset.
Change-Id: Iade3ec4b2f3eadd372cce456dca66850d37ed5fd
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13316
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
The golden reference output for the test was to throw an error which
is clearly not at all related to the test (it was about immediate
self notifications while the test never calls any form of notify())
and which would happen significantly before the end of the test,
negating all the other behaviors and checks which would happen after
that point.
Since it strongly looks like the reference output was updated in error,
and because other very similarly structured tests are expected to run
silently except for printing "Success" at the end (which it does when
run under gem5), this change manually updates the golden reference
output to reflect what appears to be correct.
Change-Id: I9cde81c28774049653d60f1ffd37a2fae875b522
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13315
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
For some reason lost to the sands of time, the throw_it function was
virtual for the Thread class, and that class would call the base
class's throw_it, and then also injectException itself. That would
result in the exception being injected into the thread twice which is
incorrect.
Since it's not clear what the original intention of this code was, the
throw_it function is now no longer virtual, and the one useful aspect
of it, a check if the process is already terminated, was moved into the
base class function.
Change-Id: I7fb14baa7728bd1e9206011870b6ccaa9c4e8c64
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13312
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
If an exception escapes sc_main, Accellera catches it and feeds it
into the report handler, telling it to run the catch actions. This
seems like it sets up lots of dangerous scenarios, and also makes a
vital error detecting path more complex and error prone.
On the other hand, it makes one of the tests pass.
Change-Id: I7f9d07e01e63c7abeee903febe2e434041ec49a4
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13307
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
These are used in one of the tests, specifically the comma operator. It
didn't cause compilation to fail because of the default meaning of the
comma.
Change-Id: I7ce7fe74f02d4ad6a4ab896a2f0d6bd1ce635c2f
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13298
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Positionally binding more than once (like with the deprecated comma or
<< operators) should pick up where it left off the last time instead
of starting again from the beginning.
Change-Id: Ifc33520d6ce40544bd0ad80a5657b1a38a7914e4
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13297
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
The previous implementation used the value changed event to track when
signals changed value, but there were a couple problems with this
approach. First, this piggybacked on the sensitivity mechanism in some
ways, but diverged in others. The sensitivity didn't notify a process
when it was satisfied like other sensitivity types would, and it also
ignored whether the process was disabled.
Second, the value_changed_event is notified by a signal instance as a
delta notification, but reset signals are supposed to act immediately.
That means they should happen before all delta notifications, or in
other words all delta notifications should see the reset status of a
given process. That's particularly important in the case of wait(int n)
where setting the reset clears the reset count, and the count is
checked when determining whether or not to wake up a process when its
sensitivity is satisfied, potentially by a delta notification.
Third, by removing the middle man and not trying to repurpose the
sensitivity mechanism, the code gets simpler and easier to understand.
Change-Id: I0d05d11437291d368b060f6a45a207813615f113
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13294
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
It appears that events which are triggered during the timing phase
are considered triggered in the following evaluation phase. The
"triggered()" function on events is non-standard and not really
explained anywhere, but this appears to work in practice.
Change-Id: I2574dc4569bf148c55fbe2a4873d458fc507f2a5
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13293
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
