Yes, your assumption is right. Every time we execute
the same binary and settings (w/o I/O), we get the same
instruction trace. The question is whether DBT introduces
any source of indeterminism (e.g., arbitrary reordering of
instructions in the TB or something that does not violate
correctnes
On 28 January 2015 at 02:51, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Javier Picorel writes:
>> We are trying to make QEMU deterministic for
>> architectural simulation. In the absence of I/O,
>> let's say only user code or exceptions, is there
>> any source of indeterminism (e.g., non deterministic
>> compiler o
Javier Picorel writes:
> We are trying to make QEMU deterministic for
> architectural simulation. In the absence of I/O,
> let's say only user code or exceptions, is there
> any source of indeterminism (e.g., non deterministic
> compiler optimizations, TB indeterminism) of
> QEMU's DBT versus
On 26 January 2015 at 17:26, Javier Picorel wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We are trying to make QEMU deterministic for
> architectural simulation. In the absence of I/O,
> let’s say only user code or exceptions, is there
> any source of indeterminism (e.g., non deterministic
> compiler optimizations, TB
Dear all,
We are trying to make QEMU deterministic for
architectural simulation. In the absence of I/O,
let’s say only user code or exceptions, is there
any source of indeterminism (e.g., non deterministic
compiler optimizations, TB indeterminism) of
QEMU’s DBT versus a canonical interpreter?
