> On Dec. 4, 2014, 3:03 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > src/sim/syscall_emul.hh, line 201 > > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2548/diff/1/?file=42865#file42865line201> > > > > How will the compiler choose between the two versions of unlinkFunc? I > > think we should either drop the default argument or drop the second version.
I just copied other instances of similar functionality. My understanding is the compiler knows which to use because of the parameter count passed in. I am happy to remove the 4 parameter version, but it will take me a bit to code and test it. - mike ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2548/#review5618 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 3, 2014, 7:10 p.m., mike upton wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2548/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 3, 2014, 7:10 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > arm: Add unlinkat syscall implementation > > added ARM aarch64 unlinkat syscall support, modeled on other <xxx>at syscalls. > This gets all of the cpu2006 int workloads passing in SE mode on aarch64. > > hmmer, omnetpp > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/arch/arm/linux/process.cc ad9146bb5598 > src/sim/syscall_emul.hh ad9146bb5598 > src/sim/syscall_emul.cc ad9146bb5598 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2548/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > build/ARM/tests/opt/quick/se > > SPEC CPU2006 integer apps, test and train input sizes > > > Thanks, > > mike upton > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
