----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/838/#review1548 -----------------------------------------------------------
The separate file seems like a good idea. I'm less sure about the hash map though... do you know for sure that this improves performance? In theory, there's no reason the compiler couldn't do something similar automatically. Plus I'd be surprised if there are enough MSR accesses to matter anyway (am I wrong?). So if we assume that performance is a non-issue, then I'd lean toward keeping the switch statement just because it will support MSRs with side effects, unless we know with high confidence that MSRs never have side effects. - Steve On 2011-09-05 18:40:22, Gabe Black wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/838/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-09-05 18:40:22) > > > Review request for Default, Ali Saidi, Gabe Black, Steve Reinhardt, and > Nathan Binkert. > > > Summary > ------- > > X86: Move the MSR lookup table out of the TLB and into its own file. > > Translating MSR addresses into MSR register indices took a lot of space in the > TLB source and made looking around in that file awkward. This change moves > the lookup into its own file to get it out of the way. It also changes it from > a switch statement to a hash map which should hopefully be a little more > efficient. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/arch/x86/regs/SConscript PRE-CREATION > src/arch/x86/regs/msr.hh PRE-CREATION > src/arch/x86/regs/msr.cc PRE-CREATION > src/arch/x86/tlb.cc b3585da1f970 > > Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/838/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Gabe > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
