Korey, I don't think there will be any change in the simulation
performance. I am not sure about stats.
Brad, were the stats updated after you made the change?
--
Nilay
On Fri, 6 May 2011, Korey Sewell wrote:
Nilay,
can you explain the impact of that bug in terms of simulation performance?
Are benchmarks running slower because of this change? Will regressions need
to be updated?
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Beckmann, Brad <brad.beckm...@amd.com>wrote:
Hi Nilay,
Yeah, pulling the State into the Machine makes sense to me. If I recall,
my previous patch made it necessary that each machine included a
state_declaration (previously the state enum). More tightly integrating the
state to the machine seems to be a natural progression on that path.
I understand moving the permission settings back to setState is the easiest
way to make this work. However, it would be great if we could combine the
setting of state and the setting of permission into one function call from
the sm file. Thus we don't have to worry about the situation where one sets
the state, but forgets to set the permission. That could lead to some
random functional access failing and a very painful debug.
Brad
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
