I can't imagine what would be causing the out-of-range memory addresses, but I do know that Tourmaline has not been tested by us with anything except Simics 2.2.19 -- and we've only used it as an accelerator, not for any serious number crunching.
Regards,
Dan
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I am having problem with simics memory accesses during transactional
workload. The physical address generated by simics are larger than the
actual memory presented in the system. In "SimicsDriver::makeRequest"
all the such accesses are ignored by ruby. So, the memory accesses
during transactions are ignored. I am running 8 cpu system with
(256*8) MB of RAM but the physical addresses generated are like 40
bits. I have checked the logical address and that address is correct
(same as in program). Am I missing something?
One more thing has anyone tried Tourmaline on simics 3.0 or tried to
migrate it to simics 3.0?
Shakeel
_______________________________________________
Gems-users mailing list
Gems-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gems-users
Use Google to search the GEMS Users mailing list by adding "site:https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/archive/gems-users/" to your search.
--
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~gibson [esc]:wq!
|
![[Computer Systems Lab]](https://www-auth.cs.wisc.edu/pics/csl_logo.gif){kind=logo}