----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2896/#review6527 -----------------------------------------------------------
yYes, we use the wire buffer in our protocols and oppose its removal. (What's the opposite of the "Ship It" button?) Brad is on vacation today so I'll comment on his behalf :). - Steve Reinhardt On June 18, 2015, 9:09 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2896/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 18, 2015, 9:09 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10881:4962564c4ce6 > --------------------------- > ruby: remove wire buffer > > The structure is not being used anywhere. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Types.sm ebb3d0737aa7 > src/mem/ruby/SConscript ebb3d0737aa7 > src/mem/ruby/structures/SConscript ebb3d0737aa7 > src/mem/ruby/structures/WireBuffer.hh ebb3d0737aa7 > src/mem/ruby/structures/WireBuffer.cc ebb3d0737aa7 > src/mem/ruby/structures/WireBuffer.py ebb3d0737aa7 > src/mem/slicc/symbols/StateMachine.py ebb3d0737aa7 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2896/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Nilay Vaish > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
