----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/293/#review446 -----------------------------------------------------------
Instead of packing/unpacking 32 bit values in 64 bit registers, why don't we template the base class on the type of register it's going to hold. I think the changes to the base class would be minimal, and it would simplify this ARM code nicely with almost no impact on the other ISAs. src/arch/arm/remote_gdb.hh <http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/293/#comment650> If you're not going to indent the constants above (which seems to be the preferred way to do things) then you should unindent this. I think it's better to be consistent that inconsistently correct. src/arch/arm/remote_gdb.cc <http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/293/#comment651> This is already happening in the base class constructor. - Gabe On 2010-11-08 15:35:16, Ali Saidi wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/293/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2010-11-08 15:35:16) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Summary > ------- > > imported patch ext/arm_gdb.patch > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/arch/arm/SConscript f61e079ad05e > src/arch/arm/remote_gdb.hh f61e079ad05e > src/arch/arm/remote_gdb.cc PRE-CREATION > src/arch/arm/utility.hh f61e079ad05e > src/arch/arm/utility.cc f61e079ad05e > > Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/293/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Ali > > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
