So, it appears that the only change that we agree on for now is the change to m5.c. Should I submit that change as its own patch and withdraw this one? Thanks, Joel
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Gabriel Michael Black < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Joel Hestness PhD Student, Computer Architecture Dept. of Computer Science, University of Texas - Austin http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~hestness
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
