On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:43 AM, nathan binkert <n...@binkert.org> wrote: >> So should we be converting these subobjects to SimObjects to make it >> easier to serialize them? Joel previously ran into a bug with the >> timer object (the MCnnnn one) where the Tsunami code was properly >> calling its serialize/unserialize functions but the x86 wasn't, which >> would have been avoided if the timer had been a SimObject. > > Perhaps better would be to make the serialization of objects use a > separate list from the list of SimObjects. Currently, we have this > lame Globals object that is serializable (and is explicitly listed in > Serializable::serializeAll(). If we did that, then we could make any > object serializable without worrying about whether it is a SimObject. > The only requirement is that the object must have a name().
We do have the Serializable class and could track all the instances of that. One question is whether there's enough overhead in SimObjects that we really need a lighter-weight class to support these cases. Steve _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
