I'm also confused by what you mean when you say "moving all controllers from being under system to being under system.ruby". Remember that the cycle has nothing to do with parent/child relationships, it only has to do with cases where a SimObject pointer is passed as a parameter to another SimObject.
Steve On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Steve Reinhardt <ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
