> If anyone on the list has any good reasons why a trace-driven CPU > should or should not derive from BaseCPU I'd be happy to hear them. I > can see some advantages (like inheriting some of the memory hierarchy > helper functions, like addPrivateSplitL1Caches()), but you also end up > having to support ThreadContext objects, which really make no sense in > the context of a trace-driven CPU (where I specifically mean a CPU > that's just playing back an address trace, not one that's consuming an > instruction-level trace).
I don't have much to add other than if BaseCPU has baggage that wouldn't be used for TraceCPU, perhaps it would be good to move some of BaseCPU into a "memory system driver" class. Nate _______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
