-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 432
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Branch predictor in cv32e40p core will take more time. #951
Comments
Hi, |
Hi @Attaullah786, did @pascalgouedo answer your question? If so, please close this Issue. If you do not comment within one week, this Issue will be closed. |
Thanks for your answer. When i run the hello world test there is no information about CPI for the test cases. Kindly give me insight about the test cases that gave clock cycles. Thanks |
Hi @Attaullah786'
What do you mean by "CPI"?
We have no testcases that track clock cycles and there is no function in the testbench that does this. We do not have any verification requirements to measure clock cycles, so this was not added. Why do you need it? |
Even if clock cycles are not useful for verification purpose, we do measure them in the benchmarks. You can find a simple example of that in matmul_32b_int one. |
I implemented a dynamic w but branch predictor in cv32e40p core. Now I have to analyze whether the branch predictor reduced the execution time for some branch instructions or not. So I need that execution time. Is there any process in the core already to find it? |
Already answered above with matmul_32b_int example. |
I integrated code of branch predictor in cv32e40p core and try to simulate hello world test in it but it will not give the tests also did not give the error.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: