> Isn't that how this is supposed to work? I did the same thing here that I was 
> told to do a long time ago for SPARC and what was called CRTP back by you 
> guys back then. I made the change to Alpha and MIPS to be consistent, and 
> because they had basically the same code I was told to clean up in SPARC 
> years ago. Being able to declare a fault class in one line is pretty nice too.

It's similar, but it's really about implementing something that's like
virtual functions at compile time.  What you're doing has an element
of that.  Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiously_recurring_template_pattern

Anyway, what do you think of my alternative?  an example of the CRTP
would be if you took my proposal and used the "compile time virtual"
to make the accessor methods work.

  Nate
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to