> Right, but you could have a flag that says "ifetch" (or an > ifetch/read/write enum in place of the read/write flag we have now) to > control that behavior. Then the current ITB would panic on a read or > write request, and the DTB would panic on an ifetch, but a UTB could > handle all of the above. That's what I was suggesting with the extra parameter. So, it sounds like this is the right approach. Gabe, can you help me implement it? I'd think that it should be relatively easy, it probably just involves mostly busy work.
> Or more realistically we could just punt on having separate ITB and DTB > classes. I personally think yes. I don't think it buys us very much. Maybe it shortens the rope we give the users when they build a configuration, but there's already way more than enough to allow a user to hang themselves. Nate _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
