Repository navigation
Error checking potentially not computed correctly if CRC and data type fail #4
Description
Reported:
If the seedcrc doesn’t match a known type then total_errors=-1, However if the call to check_data_types()then fails then we could end up with a count of zero and a pass.
switch (seedcrc) { /* test known output for common seeds */
case 0x8a02: /* seed1=0, seed2=0, seed3=0x66, size 2000 per algorithm */
known_id=0;
ee_printf("6k performance run parameters for coremark.\n");
break;
case 0x7b05: /* seed1=0x3415, seed2=0x3415, seed3=0x66, size 2000 per algorithm */
known_id=1;
ee_printf("6k validation run parameters for coremark.\n");
break;
case 0x4eaf: /* seed1=0x8, seed2=0x8, seed3=0x8, size 400 per algorithm */
known_id=2;
ee_printf("Profile generation run parameters for coremark.\n");
break;
case 0xe9f5: /* seed1=0, seed2=0, seed3=0x66, size 666 per algorithm */
known_id=3;
ee_printf("2K performance run parameters for coremark.\n");
break;
case 0x18f2: /* seed1=0x3415, seed2=0x3415, seed3=0x66, size 666 per algorithm */
known_id=4;
ee_printf("2K validation run parameters for coremark.\n");
break;
default:
total_errors=-1;
break;
}
if (known_id>=0) {
for (i=0 ; i<default_num_contexts; i++) {
results[i].err=0;
if ((results[i].execs & ID_LIST) &&
(results[i].crclist!=list_known_crc[known_id])) {
ee_printf("[%u]ERROR! list crc 0x%04x - should be 0x%04x\n",i,results[i].crclist,list_known_crc[known_id]);
results[i].err++;
}
if ((results[i].execs & ID_MATRIX) &&
(results[i].crcmatrix!=matrix_known_crc[known_id])) {
ee_printf("[%u]ERROR! matrix crc 0x%04x - should be 0x%04x\n",i,results[i].crcmatrix,matrix_known_crc[known_id]);
results[i].err++;
}
if ((results[i].execs & ID_STATE) &&
(results[i].crcstate!=state_known_crc[known_id])) {
ee_printf("[%u]ERROR! state crc 0x%04x - should be 0x%04x\n",i,results[i].crcstate,state_known_crc[known_id]);
results[i].err++;
}
total_errors+=results[i].err;
}
}
total_errors+=check_data_types();
Activity
Merge pull request eembc#4 from sifive/align_linux64
petertorelli commentedon Aug 31, 2022
This should not be closed. But a future fix is still WIP.
Sesib commentedon Sep 21, 2022
getting "listcrc" mismatch in Coremark run. What could be the potential issue?
petertorelli commentedon Sep 21, 2022
You can enable
CORE_DEBUGto print useful debugging messages. If you have a platform that passes w/o the crc error, generate debug logs for both systems and compare where things went wrong and debug from there.anuani21 commentedon Sep 22, 2022
Hi sir,
Am running coremark benchmark in riscv32 bit baremetal. build success. when i load the coremark.bare.riscv, am getting incorrect crc list ,crc matrix and crcstate value for 2k performance run algorithm.
Am getting correct seedcrc value, can you please help me to resolve the issue??
anuani21 commentedon Sep 22, 2022
when i am running CORE_DEBUG also am getting the same issue sir.
petertorelli commentedon Sep 22, 2022
Setting CORE_DEBUG won't fix the issue, but it will help you understand where the problem might be. If you look at the code, you will see that the values printed in the CORE_DEBUG statements are the same values used to generate the CRCs. If the values differ between a good run and a bad run, you need to investigate why.
anuani21 commentedon Sep 23, 2022
Hi sir,
I have tried the core_debug for examine the problem, but am facing some trap issue.
Can you please help me how to fix the issue sir?
output.log
anuani21 commentedon Sep 23, 2022
Sir,
Can you please share your core_debug log for my reference sir?
petertorelli commentedon Sep 23, 2022
I notice your matrix size is 11x11. This means different run parameters were specified from the default:
./coremark.exe 0x3415 0x3415 0x66 0 7 1 2000Try running "out of the box" first to see why your code is failing.Here is a successful
CORE_DEBUG=1log: run2.log.anuani21 commentedon Sep 24, 2022
Hi,
Can you please share core debug log for run1.log sir?
anuani21 commentedon Sep 24, 2022
anuani21 commentedon Sep 26, 2022
Hi sir,
Here I have shared my run2.log. list initalization value is differ from your log.Can you please examine and tell me what is the issue?
validation.log
gowdanp commentedon Sep 26, 2022
Hi,
I am also facing the same issue as discussed above. I have attached the log file taken on COM port by enabling CORE_DEBUG option. Can you please help me understanding this issue.
Thank you..
coremark.log
petertorelli commentedon Sep 26, 2022
@anuani21 -
Here is run1.log. Regarding your second question, EEMBC does not have source code for different platforms.
petertorelli commentedon Sep 26, 2022
@anuani21 & @gowdanp
The fact that
idxanddataare so far off is hint. This repository is for fixing CoreMark issues, not debugging user problems. It is up to you to root cause the problem and identify if there is a problem with CoreMark that we need to fix. Debugging problems like this can vary. If you look at the valid log files, you can see that the very first out put of the "Initialize list" forrun1.logshould be:But yours is:
Ok, why is this? What is your next level of debug results? If you look at the code you can see that
list->info->idxandlist->info->data16are initialized to 0x000 and 0x8080 insidecore_list_init. After the blocks are added, the list is traversed and the first 20% of the items are assignedi++and the remaining 80% are assigned a simple pseudo-random number.Instead of seeing 1, 2, 3, 4... I see 0xffff8000, 0xffffffff, 0x502, 0x512... that right there is a big problem. Obviously assigning
i++isn't going to cause that problem, so it is likely a pointer problem. Is the code using the wrong user defined types for pointers? Is there an assumption about pointer sizes in CoreMark that is invalid. These are just guesses. You need to debug it and file an issue with what is broken, if that is the case.anuani21 commentedon Sep 28, 2022
anuani21 commentedon Sep 28, 2022
Sir,
I have one doubt, In coremark seed values are not getting
correctly(seed1=0, seed2=0, seed3=0x66). Am getting random seed number for
seed1 and seed 2.seed 3 value alone getting correctly as 66 all the
time,but seed 1 and 2 values differing. Is there any idea,what is the issue
sir?
seed.log
anuani21 commentedon Oct 8, 2022
#4 (comment)
Fix error collision
joseph-yiu commentedon Jun 1, 2026
Pull request #61 has been reviewed and is now merged into development branch dev_2026q3.