[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[task #15741] Continuous integration

From: Mohammadreza Khellat
Subject: [task #15741] Continuous integration
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:10:16 -0400 (EDT)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 7.0; SM-T819) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.125 Safari/537.36

Follow-up Comment #9, task #15741 (project reproduce):

I have been editting the script fir the past 3 days.

This is what is the nice about shell, you can easily glue tools together, in
most cases where the creator is loyal to the philosophy of unix shell.

Will commit the changes by today or tomorrow and start working on qemu.

== NOTE ==

To refresh your memory:

If you remember, comparison of the created instruction sets or the assembly
codes was something that I brought up during the first skype call with Iran.
And this is definitely a very interesting core question when pursuing the
objective of reproducible research workflow; however, it is something that
should be pursued when OS independence is achieved. 

This is the approach that has been followed in maneage to organize your
workflow by first having some sort of LFS structure in place with its own
shell and everything, from there you would have the opportunity to move in
lots of interestingndirections!! And I am happynabout it :)

Going back to the question, it is clear that the difference between diffrerent
CPU archs, related to our problem, is in the instruction sets. This is the
compilor that who preprocess a code and then weave together a symbolic
assembly code. In other words, the difference in the execution of an
application or the behavior of libraries comes from first how it was assembled
and secind the design of the CPU itself and the instruction sets released for

In theory, a part of a response to the reviewer comment could be something
like this:
* creating proper and self-consistent instruction sets is the responsibility
of the compilor after the preprocessing, when it is generating the assembly
symbolic code and when it is doing the linking. In order to refrain from
dealing with instruction set related investigations, in the first phase, in
the research workflow, the researchet should, as the referee suggesting,
explicitly mention the CPU architecture that s/he has used to build the
* in the second phase, the workflow could take advantage of tools like qemu to
test project build and execution on different CPU archs.
* in a lower-level, there is no other way than directly studying the
instruction sets.
( and definitely, there are existing research and nice discussions around
this, whuch i personally prefer not to look into in the begining and to think
about them myself first ;) )


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]