----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/629/#review1062 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! - Nilay On 2011-03-31 12:21:22, Lisa Hsu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/629/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-03-31 12:21:22) > > > Review request for Default, Ali Saidi, Gabe Black, Steve Reinhardt, and > Nathan Binkert. > > > Summary > ------- > > CacheMemory: add allocateVoid() that is == allocate() but no return value. > This function duplicates the functionality of allocate() exactly, except that > it does not return > a return value. In protocols where you just want to allocate a block > but do not want that block to be your implicitly passed cache_entry, use this > function. > Otherwise, SLICC will complain if you do not consume the pointer returned by > allocate(), > and if you do a dummy assignment Entry foo := cache.allocate(address), the C++ > compiler will complain of an unused variable. This is kind of a hack to get > around > those issues, but suggestions welcome. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Types.sm d8587c913ccf > src/mem/ruby/system/CacheMemory.hh d8587c913ccf > src/mem/ruby/system/CacheMemory.cc d8587c913ccf > > Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/629/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Lisa > > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
