This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: timing analysis
- From: shahmilmerchant at aol dot com
- To: <jlarmour at redhat dot com>
- Cc: <ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:48:46 EST
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] timing analysis
HI
Im sorry to bother you so much.I have been mailing the regular list also.Well i did as u said as to not bother about the CYGPKG_HAL_I386_LINUX.But what that results in is that all the values that the program returns are zero.i also tried using CYGSEM_HAL_I386_LINUX_REAL_TIME but get the same as before.
shahmil
In a message dated Thu, 13 Dec 2001 7:12:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, Jonathan Larmour <jlarmour@redhat.com> writes:
> shahmilmerchant@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> > I am building the above on a linux synthetic target.When i try running the tm_basic executable i get the following message
> > NOTAPPLICABLE:<Timing tests require:
> > CYGFUN_KERENEL_API_C &&
> > CYGSEM_KERNEL_SCHED_MLQUEUE &&
> > CYGVAR_KERNEL_COUNTERS_CLOCK &&
> > !CYGPKG_HAL_I386_LINUX &&
> > !CYGDBG_INFRA_DIAG_USE_DEVICE &&
> > (CYGNUM_KERNEL_SCHED_PRIORITIES > 12)
> > >
> >
> > and it just hangs after this.
> > Any ideas?
>
> Yes, tm_basic isn't useful on the synthetic target as the timings depend on
> both the speed of the processor and how much time Linux gives the process -
> i.e. the results will never be consistent. If you don't care about that,
> you can go and change the source code to not complain about
> !CYGPKG_HAL_I386_LINUX.
>
> Or if you do need reproducability, use a simulator target like for the MIPS
> tx39 or MN10300 stdeval1 targets.
>
> I noticed this message was plain text, not HTML, so you can in future mail
> the ecos-discuss list. Then other people can potentially answer quicker!
>
> Jifl
> --
> Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
> Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine