Given that the code is unreachable, using warn() seems somewhat irrelevant. :-)
I can see your point though in terms of being able to grep for possible problems. Steve On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:57 PM, nathan binkert <n...@binkert.org> wrote: > IMHO, things like this shouldn't be comments, but should rather use > hack() or warn() to notify the user that something fishy might be > going on. > > Nate > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Brad Beckmann <brad.beckm...@amd.com> wrote: >> changeset b78b3a9e205f in /z/repo/m5 >> details: http://repo.m5sim.org/m5?cmd=changeset;node=b78b3a9e205f >> description: >> ruby: improved isReadWrite fix me comment >> >> diffstat: >> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.cc | 6 ++++-- >> >> diffs (16 lines): >> >> diff -r 6bf327b128c6 -r b78b3a9e205f src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.cc >> --- a/src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.cc Sun Mar 21 21:22:22 2010 -0700 >> +++ b/src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.cc Mon Mar 22 11:19:17 2010 -0700 >> @@ -230,8 +230,10 @@ >> type = RubyRequestType_ST; >> } else if (pkt->isReadWrite()) { >> // >> - // Fix me. Just because the packet is a read/write request does >> not >> - // necessary mean it is a read-modify-write atomic operation. >> + // Fix me. This conditional will never be executed because >> + // isReadWrite() is just an OR of isRead() and isWrite(). >> + // Furthermore, just because the packet is a read/write request >> does >> + // not necessary mean it is a read-modify-write atomic >> operation. >> // >> type = RubyRequestType_RMW_Write; >> } else { >> _______________________________________________ >> m5-dev mailing list >> m5-dev@m5sim.org >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > m5-dev@m5sim.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
