On 6 May 2015 at 15:05, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> What I am most worried about (and I need to run some tests to really
> confirm facts) is what happens if a CPU WFIs. Should the PMCCNTR
> continue on or hold its value? If we match instruction execution to
> PMCCNTR to the PMCCNTR will freeze.
Se
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:35 AM, Christopher Covington
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Peter Crosthwaite
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Christopher Covington
>> wrote:
>>> Present a system with an instructions per cycle of exactly one.
>>> This makes it less likely a user
On 01/05/2015 00:02, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 30 April 2015 at 22:33, Christopher Covington
> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 2015 2:28 PM, "Peter Maydell" wrote:
>>> Are you really really sure the _raw function is the correct one?
>>> Nowhere else in the codebase calls it except the other wrappers
>>> i
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Peter Crosthwaite
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Christopher Covington
> wrote:
>> Present a system with an instructions per cycle of exactly one.
>> This makes it less likely a user will mistake the cycle counter
>> values as meaningful and makes calc
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Christopher Covington
wrote:
> Present a system with an instructions per cycle of exactly one.
> This makes it less likely a user will mistake the cycle counter
> values as meaningful and makes calculations involving cycles
> trivial while preserving the necessary
On 30 April 2015 at 22:33, Christopher Covington
wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2015 2:28 PM, "Peter Maydell" wrote:
>> Are you really really sure the _raw function is the correct one?
>> Nowhere else in the codebase calls it except the other wrappers
>> in cpu.c which provide a sane view of the instruction
Hi Peter,
Thanks for taking a look.
On Apr 30, 2015 2:28 PM, "Peter Maydell" wrote:
>
> On 30 April 2015 at 19:14, Christopher Covington
> wrote:
> > Present a system with an instructions per cycle of exactly one.
> > This makes it less likely a user will mistake the cycle counter
> > values as
On 30 April 2015 at 19:14, Christopher Covington
wrote:
> Present a system with an instructions per cycle of exactly one.
> This makes it less likely a user will mistake the cycle counter
> values as meaningful and makes calculations involving cycles
> trivial while preserving the necessary proper
Present a system with an instructions per cycle of exactly one.
This makes it less likely a user will mistake the cycle counter
values as meaningful and makes calculations involving cycles
trivial while preserving the necessary property of the cycle
counter register as monotonically increasing.
Si
