So if we explicitly handled the SIGABRT signal, we would only want to do that if we are running interactively, correct? If so, then we would still have some sort of conditional similar, if not the same as, the current conditional in the assert macro "if (isatty(STDIN_FILENO))". If my understanding is correct, then we would still have multiple behaviors for assert. One when the running interactively and another when running in batch mode.
Am I missing something? I just want to make sure I understand why we don't want to just move the current Ruby ASSERT macro into src/base/debug.hh (or some other file in src/base). Thanks, Brad From: bink...@gmail.com [mailto:bink...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of nathan binkert Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:40 AM To: Beckmann, Brad Cc: Nilay Vaish; Steve Reinhardt; Ali Saidi; Gabe Black; Default Subject: Re: Review Request: ruby: get rid of ruby's Debug.hh 2. Just for my own knowledge... Nate, you mentioned that handling the SIGABRT signal is the right way to make this feature work for all of M5. Why is that? Is it just the preference not to use macros that overwrite the meaning of assert, or is it something more fundamental? Not fundamental. Mostly because we don't want multiple meanings of assert. It seems that if we could get this to work properly that it would be easiest as well. Nate
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
