Quoting Ali Saidi <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:59:08 -0400, Gabriel Michael Black
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hmm, maybe we should be building these regularly too... What do you
think, Ali? Would it be possible to return reserved1_func and use a
different code?
It was reserved for me while I was doing the bottleneck analysis work and
didn't want anyone to grab that ID. Once I pushed all of the bottleneck
analysis changes, I changed reserved into the actual cp_annotate
operations. So, everything worked as intended.
reserved1_func shouldn't be used anywhere and shouldn't be added back to
the file.
Ali
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
I don't understand how that made it reserved. Wouldn't anyone else be
able to do the same thing you did but with some conflicting use? The
comment next to those says "Reserved for user", but it's not if it
ends up being assigned an official use. Why would we want to have
reserved2_func but not reserved1_func?
Gabe
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
