I'm not sure this is a great solution, since eventually it would be nice to get rid of RubySystem as a separate object and just use System. (There's really no non-historical reason to have both.)
I still don't quite understand where the cycles are coming from; the outputs you sent after adding the additional print statements don't seem to show one, maybe because of the other changes you made. Or maybe I'm just not interpreting them correctly. Steve On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Nilay Vaish <ni...@cs.wisc.edu> wrote: > In order to solve the cycle problem, I am thinking of moving all > controllers from being under system to being under system.ruby. I would add > them to RubySystem, after that these controllers can be used to construct a > list of cache memories that are present in the system. Similarly, I will > also add pointers for RubyPort objects to RubySystem. These would be used to > inform RubyPort objects about the RubySystem to which they belong. Through > RubySystem, a RubyPort would be able to access the cache memories and thus > perform functional accesses. > > Thanks > > Nilay > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > m5-dev@m5sim.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
