Yes, that was a typo, I was talking about 32 byte blocks. But, I think this patch is simple enough to understand what is going on without the commit message, no?
-Tony On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> wrote: > The commit message is misleading. > > -- > Nilay > > > On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Anthony Gutierrez wrote: > > changeset cb942df51335 in /z/repo/gem5 >> details: >> http://repo.gem5.org/gem5?cmd=**changeset;node=cb942df51335<http://repo.gem5.org/gem5?cmd=changeset;node=cb942df51335> >> description: >> bus: removed outdated warn regarding 64 B block sizes >> >> this warn is outdated as 64 B blocks are very common, and even >> the default size for some CPU types. E.g., arm_detailed. >> >> diffstat: >> >> src/mem/bus.cc | 4 ++-- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diffs (14 lines): >> >> diff -r c38988024f1f -r cb942df51335 src/mem/bus.cc >> --- a/src/mem/bus.cc Wed Sep 19 06:15:46 2012 -0400 >> +++ b/src/mem/bus.cc Thu Sep 20 17:25:52 2012 -0400 >> @@ -483,8 +483,8 @@ >> if (max_bs == 0) >> max_bs = defaultBlockSize; >> >> - if (max_bs != 64) >> - warn_once("Blocksize found to not be 64... hmm... probably >> not.\n"); >> + if (max_bs != 64 && max_bs != 32) >> + warn_once("Blocksize found to not be 32 or 64... hmm... probably >> not.\n"); >> cachedBlockSize = max_bs; >> cachedBlockSizeValid = true; >> return max_bs; >> ______________________________**_________________ >> gem5-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/**listinfo/gem5-dev<http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/**listinfo/gem5-dev<http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev> > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
